A legal truism is that you need to put your best forward at trial and that you cannot count on an appeal to change the outcome. Appeals are based on identifying errors in law, mere disagreement with the trial judge’s findings of fact will not suffice. Facts are immutable, requiring a “palpable and overriding error” which translates to a misapprehension of the evidence or overlooking evidence. Shahid v. Sattar 2026 BCCA 274 is such an appeal case, involving in-person parties.
The first sign of an appeal that is likely to fail is the number of grounds of appeal advanced, however, an overwhelming list of errors is common in appeals with the self-represented. When it shows up in a lawyer’s factum it is a sign of inexperience. In Shahid v. Sattar the appellant husband, Shahrukh Sattar, cited 17 errors in law and brought an application to introduce additional evidence, found in a 243-page affidavit with attachments.
The parties married in Pakistan in 2016, lived in Kuwait, and immigrated to Canada in 2022 with their 4-year-old son. Ms. Sattar had a bachelor of finance degree and a master’s degree in management. Her husband had a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in engineering.
The relationship was fraught with difficulties with Ms. Sattar alleging that her husband’s overbearing financial control left her with few financial resources as he strictly controlled the family purse. An example of this was evident when Ms. Sattar travelled to Pakistan for a 6-month visit with her young son. Mr. Shahid provided her with only $300 in spending money. The trial judge found that his financial control was coercive and demeaning, qualifying as family violence pursuant to the Family Law Act. Her husband also forbade her from obtaining a driver’s license. She was often threatened with divorce or being sent back to Pakistan.
By May of 2022 the relationship was over when Mr. Shahid locked his wife out of their rental home. Ms. Sattar and her son moved to a succession of transition houses, while her husband remained in the family home. He gave her a one-time payment of $250 and no child or spousal support. He also retained the parties’ bank account holding $60,000 and was earning $86,000 a year. Ms. Sattar had no income.
At trial, Mr. Shahid alleged that his wife had an interest in her father’s business in Pakistan; that she had undervalued her gold jewelry; that funds received by him from his father during the marriage were not gifts, but repayable loans; and that his wife ought to be better employed and thus, income should be imputed to her.
The trial judge commented that where the parties’ evidence varied, he preferred the evidence of Ms. Sattar. On appeal, Mr. Shahid took exception to this finding, alleging unfairness and bias. He also alleged that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons and sought a new trial.
Mr. Shahid focused his attention at trial on a photograph that he asserted supported his position that his wife’s evidence was not credible. The photograph showed Ms. Sattar’s father posing with an important former Pakistani politician. When he examined Ms. Sattar he asked her whether she had seen the photo before. She answered that she did not recall ever seeing the photo and suggested that she had not seen it.
Mr. Shahid believed that this photo was evidence of his wife’s wealthy family. The appeal court, recognizing that the trial judge’s reasons did not refer to this evidence, determined that Mr. Shahid’s persistent fixation on this photo bordered on the absurd and highlighted his inability to separate relevance from pettiness and was not evidence of a wealthy family. Mr. Shahid maintained this position, alleging that his wife had received monies throughout the marriage from her family, evidence that was not accepted by the trial judge.
With respect to Mr. Shadid’s evidence that the parties owed his father $33,000 which he said was family debt, the trial judge remarked that no contemporaneous documents were submitted, no specifications of the manner of repayment, no demands for repayment, and no partial payment was made, despite Mr. Shadid having the means to do so.
The appeal court emphasized that reasons for judgment are meant to summarize the judge’s conclusions but are not a detailed review of every single inconsistency in the evidence. Further, there is no requirement that trial judges detail every aspect of their factual deliberations, citing Kakavelakis v. Boutsakis 2027 BCCA 396. All that is required is that the reasons show that the judge grappled with the substance of the live issues. An appeal court is not obliged to finely parse through the trial judge’s reasons to search for errors.
With respect to further grounds of appeal identified by the husband, the appeal court noted that at times in his factum he simply wrote, “oral submissions to be made”, a highly problematic and unacceptable way to bring an appeal, as it does not provide notice to the respondent of the argument she is to meet.
The court also considered his fresh evidence application, noting that it failed to establish the criteria set out in Palmer v. The Queen 1980 1 SCR 759, as affirmed in Barendregt v. Grebliunas 2022 SCC 22, as the evidence was available at trial or irrelevant and would not have changed the result at trial.
The appeal and fresh evidence application were dismissed.
**This article was first published in LAW360, a publication of LexisNexis Canada.