Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on alleged contract performance for off-grid solar installation work.

• The appellant challenged the admissibility of late-disclosed video and surprise witnesses.

• Claims of judicial bias and procedural unfairness were raised but found unsubstantiated.

• The court reviewed alleged improper billing and property damage in the counterclaim.

• Set-off between claims and counterclaims led to a net award favoring the respondents.

• Appeal dismissed due to no palpable or overriding error in trial judge’s rulings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and claim origins
Blue Green Solar Ltd., owned and represented by Michael Yearwood, was contracted by Chris Lewis and Denise Bauman to assist with installing and improving an off-grid solar power system. A $20,000 deposit was paid by the respondents for the work. The business relationship broke down, leading to financial disputes. Blue Green Solar Ltd. initiated a claim in the Provincial Court of British Columbia on February 4, 2022, initially seeking $10,449.27, later amended to $12,613.12 for outstanding payments. In response, the respondents filed a counterclaim for $42,828.83, citing incomplete work, damages to their home, and improper billing.

Provincial court ruling
The Provincial Court, presided over by Regional Administrative Judge C.A. Struyk, partially allowed both the claim and the counterclaim. The appellant was awarded $7,122.62, and the respondents were awarded $10,792.48. After applying set-off, the respondents received a net judgment of $3,669.86. Other claims and counterclaims were dismissed. No filing or service fees were awarded due to mixed success. The ruling acknowledged deficiencies and safety hazards in the appellant’s installation work and concerns with how labor and materials were accounted for.

Appeal to the Supreme Court
Blue Green Solar Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, arguing procedural unfairness, including improper admission of an undisclosed video recording and witness testimony, lack of police witness appearances, judicial bias, and misinterpretation of contract law. Mr. Yearwood contended that the respondents violated disclosure rules and that their video contravened section 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code. He also alleged that the judge’s credibility findings were racially biased.

Judgment on appeal
Justice Tindale dismissed the appeal on June 19, 2025. The court found that while disclosure rules were not perfectly followed, the appellant had been given a chance to object and ultimately chose to proceed. The video was deemed admissible as both parties were present during the incident it depicted. The Criminal Code provision cited by the appellant was found irrelevant, as it pertains to intimate images, not standard video recordings. The court also found no evidence supporting the allegations of racial bias or procedural unfairness.

Final outcome
The appeal was fully dismissed, and the respondents, Chris Lewis and Denise Bauman, were awarded their costs for the appeal. The total monetary award in favor of the respondents remained $3,669.86 from the Provincial Court judgment, plus additional appeal costs to be assessed. The matter is now concluded after more than three years of litigation.