
Inherited a home with a sibling: can you force a sale or buy them out?
Sangster-Rydzik v Sangster shows why the terms of the will, the capacity in which someone holds property and the remedy requested must align.
Insights
Understand recent decisions, common legal problems, and the practical steps that may matter for your situation.
Research · Review · ExplainShowing 1–12 of 84 insights

Sangster-Rydzik v Sangster shows why the terms of the will, the capacity in which someone holds property and the remedy requested must align.

The Court of Appeal upheld an oppression finding where a family shareholder was denied information and treated unfairly after control of the company changed.

A certificate of pending litigation was removed after years of inactivity, even though the plaintiffs remained free to pursue their underlying claims.

A dispute over a cat explains the difference between a voluntary sharing agreement and what a BC court can order when separating spouses cannot agree.

A construction consultant could not rely on a waiver in another party’s contract. The result turned on the contract’s wording and structure—not a blanket rule against waivers.

Madsen v MacNutt shows how a court can protect a spouse’s potential financial interest without handing over control of the business.

Not every harsh review is unlawful. A BC defamation assessment separates factual allegations from opinion, examines available defences and considers the risks of litigation over public-interest expression.

A promised Canadian job or LMIA can conceal several different legal problems. For BC-connected cases, identify what the payment actually purchased, who received it and which recovery route fits the evidence.

When an agreed trip becomes an unagreed stay abroad, early action matters. Learn how wrongful retention, Hague Convention proceedings and urgent BC advice fit together.

Discovering incorrect employment history, documents or other information in an immigration application raises two separate problems: the immigration consequences and a possible claim against the representative.

Stewart v Richardson, 2026 BCCA 362, explains why unresolved financial issues did not prevent a parenting decision in that case—and why the answer still depends on the child, the issues and the evidence.

Pearce v. Napier, 2026 BCSC 1694, shows both the consequences of repeated disclosure failures and why contempt is not the automatic next step in a BC family case.
Publication standard
Explore case summaries and practical guides, then follow the source links where provided. For advice about how the law applies to your circumstances, speak with a lawyer.
Read the editorial standardSinclair Centre Law
Tell us the general nature of your matter and any immediate deadline. Please do not send confidential documents until the firm confirms it can act.