Jeffrey William Beedell

The appeal addressed whether a trustee under a labour and material payment bond must disclose the bond’s existence to potential beneficiaries.

A majority held that where non-disclosure would unreasonably disadvantage a beneficiary, fiduciary duties require reasonable notice steps.

Because the contractor did nothing to alert subcontractors in circumstances where such bonds were uncommon, it breached trust obligations, and the case was remitted for damages quantification.

The appellant challenged Law Society rules making continuing professional development mandatory and authorizing administrative suspension for non-compliance without an express hearing or appeal process.

The majority held law society rules are reviewed for reasonableness and are valid if consistent with the enabling statute’s purpose, wording, and scheme.

It concluded the Law Society’s broad public-interest mandate and rule-making powers authorized mandatory education standards enforced by temporary suspension.

The majority further held the absence of codified hearing and appeal rights in the rules did not render them unreasonable in this declaratory challenge.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent finding automatic suspension manifestly unjust.

In this criminal appeal, the Court considered challenges to the trial judge’s use of alibi and prior-vandalism evidence in upholding convictions for arson and mischief.

A majority dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Willcock J.A. and declined to re-examine the governing jurisprudence in the circumstances.

The majority upheld the convictions, while one judge would have allowed the appeal based on the dissenting appellate reasons.

The appellant challenged a provincial appellate ruling that reversed leave to appeal an arbitral award under s. 31 of the Arbitration Act.

The dispute concerned whether an option to renew was validly exercised by letter under a commercial agreement.

The appellate court held no pure question of law arose from the arbitrator’s interpretation, so the statutory leave threshold was not met.

The Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.