Northpoint Legal Articles

In Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 2024 BCCA 395, the BC Court of Appeal upheld a rare ruling that cancelled $280,000 in child and spousal support arrears, interest, and penalties. The Court accepted that the payor had consistently overpaid based on incorrect income assumptions since 2014. Applying the Colucci test, the Court found the delay was reasonably explained, the payor’s conduct was responsible, and repayment would cause extreme hardship. This case shows that long-term retroactive support adjustments are possible in exceptional circumstances—but require strong evidence and a clear legal strategy.

In Rae v. Gadalla, 2023 BCSC 1398, the court found the owners of a Yorkshire Terrier liable after their dog bit the plaintiff in an elevator. The ruling clarifies two legal pathways for pet attack claims in BC: negligence and scienter. Negligence applies if the owner should have known the pet posed a risk and failed to act. Scienter applies only if the owner actually knew of the pet’s harmful tendencies. In Rae, past incidents of aggression supported both claims. While the plaintiff sought up to $35,000, the court awarded $5,000 in damages due to the limited extent of the injuries.

Loss of housekeeping capacity refers to the reduced ability to perform everyday household tasks due to injury—such as cleaning, cooking, yard work, or childcare. Courts recognize this as a valid head of damages, either on its own or within broader categories like non-pecuniary damages or cost of future care. The aim is to compensate for the value of work the injured person can no longer do. There's no fixed age limit for such awards, and each case depends on its unique facts.

Defence cost allocation and control between insurers or between an insurer and an insured depend on equity, fairness, and policy wording. Courts may allow shared costs or independent control of the defence when conflicts of interest arise—particularly if coverage hinges on the insured’s conduct or the policy includes both covered and uncovered claims.

Defence cost allocation and control between insurers or between an insurer and an insured depend on equity, fairness, and policy wording. Courts may allow shared costs or independent control of the defence when conflicts of interest arise—particularly if coverage hinges on the insured’s conduct or the policy includes both covered and uncovered claims.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in British Columbia aims to simplify small claims and strata disputes through an online system, but its restrictions on legal representation may inadvertently harm insured parties and disrupt insurance-funded defences—raising fairness and financial concerns for both litigants and insurers.

In Sohal v. Lezama, 2021 BCCA 40, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that courts have no discretion to allow third party claims for contribution or indemnity once the two-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, SBC 2012 has expired. This marks a sharp shift from the former regime, reinforcing the need for defendants to act promptly when seeking to involve third parties in litigation.

In Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the City of Nelson could be held liable for injuries from snow clearing decisions. The Court clarified that “core policy” immunity applies only to high-level, deliberative decisions made by officials close to government. Since the City’s snow clearing was operational—not a core policy—it owed Ms. Marchi a duty of care. This decision guides how municipalities and insurers should assess liability and immunity claims in public service cases.

In Corner Brook (City) v. Bailey, 2021 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that releases should be interpreted like any other contract—based on their wording and the circumstances at the time. Mrs. Bailey’s third-party claim against the City was barred because the release she signed clearly covered all claims related to the 2009 accident. The Court rejected the older Blackmore Rule, emphasizing that general contractual principles now govern how releases are interpreted.

In R. v. Rajani, 2021 BCCA 292, the BC Court of Appeal ruled that “holding” an electronic device while driving includes supporting it with any part of the body—not just the hands. Mr. Rajani had a phone resting on or under his leg, which the court found qualified as “use” under the Motor Vehicle Act. This decision confirms a broad interpretation of “use,” meaning drivers may be ticketed even if the device isn’t held in their hands but is still physically supported.