The British Columbia Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in the case of Saik’uz First Nation and Stellat’en First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., (2015 BCCA 154) overturning the chambers judge’s decision to strike a portion of the claim.

It is said that “All roads lead to Rome.” In the construction law context, this idiom may be modified to “All roads lead to court.”

The recent case of B.M.S. v. J.M.S. (2015 BCSC 385) emphasized the importance of business valuations in the family law context.

On February 26, 2015, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its decision in Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia (2015 BCCA 89).  This case’s long history began in 2006 when George Behn, a trapper and member of the Fort Nelson First Nation, set up a blockade to prevent Moulton Contracting Ltd. (“Moulton”) from making use of two timber licenses issued by the B.C. government.  Moulton sued George Behn (along with members of his family who participated in the blockade) and the Province for damages that resulted from the blockade which halted logging operations. A related case, Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd. 2013 SCC 26, went to the Supreme Court of Canada and set a precedent in Aboriginal law on the issue of consultation obligations in relation to particular members of a First Nation Band. 

In the BC Supreme Court, Moulton alleged that it suffered a loss as a result of the blockade and that the Province should have warned Moulton about the potential for a blockade. It claimed against the Province on the basis of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.  Moulton alleged that the Province represented that it had consulted with all relevant Aboriginal groups and that Moulton would have unimpeded access to the lands under the licenses. However, the Court rejected both of these misrepresentation claims citing the limitations contained within the licenses and the finding that George Behn would have put up the blockade regardless of the Province meeting its duty to consult. ...Read More

The high-profile bankruptcy of Target Canada continues to raise interesting legal questions. The process has made headlines on topics such as employee and executive compensation, and priorities in bankruptcy.