Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, (2015) 380 B.C.A.C. 269 (CA)
| Judge | Kirkpatrick, Garson and Goepel, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | November 04, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 269 (CA);2015 BCCA 522 |
Ganges Kangro Prop. v. Shepard (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 269 (CA);
655 W.A.C. 269
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.020
Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. (respondent/plaintiff) v. Michael Phillip Shepard (appellant/defendant)
(CA42012; 2015 BCCA 522)
Indexed As: Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Kirkpatrick, Garson and Goepel, JJ.A.
December 21, 2015.
Summary:
The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale respecting a residential property. The day before closing, the purchaser advised the vendor that he would not complete the transaction on the basis that there was an undisclosed flooding risk arising from a dam that was alleged to encroach on the property. The vendor sued the purchaser for breach of contract.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1326, found that the dam was not a latent defect and awarded the vendor damages of $51,504.79. The purchaser appealed, arguing that the judge erred by (1) arbitrarily rejecting the expert opinion evidence that he tendered; and (2) relying on inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Courts - Topic 583
Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - See paragraphs 36 to 59.
Evidence - Topic 7002
Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Acceptance, rejection and weight to be given to expert opinion - See paragraphs 36 to 59.
Evidence - Topic 7010
Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Admissibility of information used to support opinion - See paragraphs 62 to 67.
Evidence - Topic 7073
Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Use of - See paragraphs 62 to 67.
Evidence - Topic 7112
Opinion evidence - Nonexpert evidence - Admissibility - See paragraphs 68 to 89.
Practice - Topic 8803
Appeals - General principles - Whether trial judge must give reasons for rejecting evidence or for credibility findings - See paragraphs 36 to 59.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 39].
Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 182; 470 N.R. 324; 360 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1135 A.P.R. 1; 2015 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 40].
Buctouche First Nation v. New Brunswick - see Simon et al. v. New Brunswick et al.
Simon et al. v. New Brunswick et al. (2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 304; 1110 A.P.R. 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Abbey (W.N.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9; 2009 ONCA 624, leave to appeal refused (2010), 409 N.R. 397; 276 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 48].
Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 48].
Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
Chancery Estate Holdings Corp. et al. v. Sahara Real Estate Investment Inc. et al. (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 225; 573 W.A.C. 225; 2013 BCCA 145, refd to. [para. 48].
Jampolsky v. Shattler (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 311; 631 W.A.C. 311; 2015 BCCA 87, refd to. [para. 49].
D.C. Gem Craft Inc. v. Pafco Insurance Co. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 330; 40 O.R.(3d) 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 50].
Wafler v. Trinh (2014), 355 B.C.A.C. 55; 607 W.A.C. 55; 2014 BCCA 95, refd to. [para. 50].
Savinkoff v. Seggewiss (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 98; 126 W.A.C. 98; 25 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 52].
K.V.P. v. T.E., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014; 275 N.R. 52; 156 B.C.A.C. 161; 255 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 53].
R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 70].
Counsel:
A.M. Gunn, Q.C., for the appellant;
J.A. Jaffer and B. Brock, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on November 4, 2015, before Kirkpatrick, Garson and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Kirkpatrick, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on December 21, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...134 Gallant v Capital Health Region, 2004 BCSC 1107 ........................................... 318 Ganges Kangro Properties v Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522 ..................................... 240 Gardiner v R, 2010 NBCA 46 ..............................................................................
-
Opinion and Expert Evidence
...is whether it is necessary to have the lay witness express an opinion. It is clear 21 Ibid . 22 See Ganges Kangro Properties v Shepard , 2015 BCCA 522 at para 76. 23 Graat , above note 20 at 841. 24 If lay opinion evidence falls within one of the traditional categories identified in Graat (......
-
Mee Hoi Bros. Company Ltd. v. Borving Investments (Canada) Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1999
...The Court of Appeal reiterated this approach to colloquy more recently in Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522: [48] The second question is whether this Court can consider the judge’s colloquy with counsel to assist in understanding his reaso......
-
Swanson v MacKinnon,
...to exclude Dr. Janicki's evidence altogether as irrelevant, unhelpful, and unnecessary: Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd v Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522 at paras 40, 58; see also Dietterle v Vanguard Mortgage Investment Corporation, 2023 BCCA 425 at para 36. This is not because of any overall lack of ......
-
Mee Hoi Bros. Company Ltd. v. Borving Investments (Canada) Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1999
...The Court of Appeal reiterated this approach to colloquy more recently in Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522: [48] The second question is whether this Court can consider the judge’s colloquy with counsel to assist in understanding his reaso......
-
Oswald v. Start Up SRL, 2020 BCSC 205
...[64] The principles applicable to the admissibility of lay opinion evidence are summarized in Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522, at paras. 69-76, and the relevant requirements are set out as follows: [73] In The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisN......
-
Santelli v. Trinetti, 2019 BCCA 319
...were not within his knowledge, observation, or experience: R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43 at para. 49; Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522 at paras. 68–76. Further, this evidence would not meet the Palmer test for decisiveness on any The appellant’s affidavit [50] The affidavit......
-
Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 2084
...the “compendium statement of fact exception” to the usual requirement for expert opinions (Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522) and in other cases it is called “lay opinion evidence”, American Creek Resources Ltd. v. Teuton Resources Corp., 2013 BCSC 1042, at para. 142).......
-
Table of cases
...134 Gallant v Capital Health Region, 2004 BCSC 1107 ........................................... 318 Ganges Kangro Properties v Shepard, 2015 BCCA 522 ..................................... 240 Gardiner v R, 2010 NBCA 46 ..............................................................................
-
Opinion and Expert Evidence
...is whether it is necessary to have the lay witness express an opinion. It is clear 21 Ibid . 22 See Ganges Kangro Properties v Shepard , 2015 BCCA 522 at para 76. 23 Graat , above note 20 at 841. 24 If lay opinion evidence falls within one of the traditional categories identified in Graat (......