WCAT No. A1604204

November 21, 2017

Chris represented the developer of a large construction project in Abbotsford that was fined almost $60,000 in two separate penalty orders for alleged safety contraventions on site. After an initial review, the Review Division doubled the second penalty, increasing the total fine to $90,000. We appealed to WCAT and it was determined the Review Division’s reasoning was flawed. As a result, the second penalty was cancelled altogether and the fine reduced to less than $30,000.

WCAT No. A1602170

November 9, 2016

We acted for a landscape construction company that was fined just under $32,000 when two of its workers failed to wear a seatbelt while driving a tractor on a large construction project in Abbotsford. After an appeal to WCAT, the penalty was downgraded to a lesser category and cut in half.

De Bianci v Dunkley Lumber, 2020 BCHRT 56

Our client was injured in a helicopter crash at work. The employer then terminated her employment while she was on medical leave and WorkSafeBC benefits. Our client filed a complaint under the Human Rights Code and the employer applied to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. We resited the application to dismiss and it was denied as the employer was unsuccessful in showing that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. Importantly, the tribunal found that “determinations made by WorkSafeBC abour whether an employee can return to a pre-injury job are not based on a human rights analysis of whether an employer has fulfilled its duty to accommodate.” 

–

Neiser v. Su, 2014 BCHRT 190
Chris acted for the landlord of a premises in which the tenant alleged discrimination on the basis of a medical disability. The landlord had evicted her following the discovery of a modified electrical panel to support a marijuana grow operation and the tenant’s refusal to allow for repairs to the unit. We applied to dismiss the complaint and the Tribunal granted the application, finding the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and the allegations as merely speculative and conjectural.

–

Cook v. Coquitlam Towing & Storage, 2013 BCHRT 267
Chris’s client was a tow-truck driver who was injured at work. The employer terminated his employment after WorkSafeBC determined he was not fit to return to his pre-injury job. We filed a complaint with the Tribunal and the employer applied to dismiss the complaint, arguing that WorkSafeBC’s decision justified the termination. The Tribunal dismissed the employer’s application finding no evidence of an attempt to accommodate. The case was settled shortly afterwards.

–

Desrochers v. Teksmed Services, 2013 BCHRT 56
Our client was terminated from employment during a medical leave. The employer applied to dismiss her complaint to the Tribunal, partly because of a concurrent employment standards proceeding. The Tribunal dismissed the employer’s application and found the case had a reasonable prospect of success. It was settled shortly after the decision.

–
Roy v. Tailwind Management Systems and others, 2013 BCHRT 258
The employer brought an application to dismiss our client’s human rights claim after she was terminated from employment during a medical leave. The Tribunal dismissed the application and found the case should proceed. The case was subsequently resolved before the hearing.

Soucie v Icefields Paramedic Services Ltd., BCPC File No. 20400, Abbotsford

The Court found that the Client, a paramedic, was constructively dismissed and awarded severance.
In a separate decision, the Court awarded $2,500 in costs based on the defendant’s failure to accept a reasonable pre-trial offer.

BC EST # D022/12 Metasoft Systems Inc.

The Employment Standards Tribunal confirmed an award of just over $20,000 to Client
after finding she was terminated for making a complaint to the Director of Employment Standards about her employment conditions. This is listed as a Noteworthy decision on the Tribunal’s website, and it represents one of the largest awards ever made under s. 83 of the Employment Standards Act.

Tonn v. Sears Canada Inc., 2016 BCSC 1081
Chris was co-counsel for the plaintiff in a class action against a large national department store after the termination of approximately 100 British Columbia employees from the home services department.

Oyal Canadian Legion Branch Maple Ridge Branch #88 v Service, Health, Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union, CLAC Local 501, 2016 CanLII 44229 (BC LRB)

Chris represented the Employer in defending a reconsideration application before the Labour Relations Board involving the description of a bargaining unit in the context of a union raid application. The union’s resonsideration application was denied.

Sargeant v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 893
Chris represented our client in a judicial review application in federal court after his security clearance license was rescinded by Transport Canada following the discovery of a dated arrest in Washington state. His employer terminated him due to the loss of his security clearance. The Court issued an important decision regarding the review of security clearance decisions and procedural fairness regarding the process.

S.S. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2019; Tribunal Number: GE-19-1950
September 20, 2019
Chris’ client was denied Employment Insurance benefits after the Commission determined that she had left her job voluntarily. We appealed to the Social Security Tribunal and successfully argued that our client was in fact terminated from employment and therefore she was entitled to EI benefits. She received a retroactive payment and ongoing support during her search for new employment. 

–
G.R. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2016 SSTGDEI

Client applied for EI benefits and was denied. The main issue was whether the Appellant lost his employment by reason of his own conduct, specifically being terminated for absenteeism. Chris was able to successfully show that his client’s actions did not constitute misconduct.

W.N. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development; Tribunal Number: GP-14-2909

November 30, 2015
Chris’ client was denied a CPP-disability pension. We applied to the Social Security Tribunal and after an oral hearing, the SST allowed the appeal and found our client’s disability was severe and prolonged. Our client was awarded 19 months of retroactive CPP benefits and an ongoing pension up to age 65.

Pringle v. Pringle, 2020 BCSC 75
Chris was co-counsel for the defendant in a case where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant intentionally ran him over with her vehicle. After a six day trial, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for aggravated and punitive damages and found the plaintiff was in fact 50% responsible for the incident.

Gibson v Matthies, 2017 BCSC 839
Chris represented the defendant in a claim brought by the plaintiff in relation to a motorcycle accident. After a three-day trial on liability, the Court determined that the plaintiff was 75% responsible for the accident. 

Chohan v. KHK Holdings et. al., 2015 BCPC 131

Chris achieved a successful result for a local Fraser Valley business owner after a three day trial in a matter involving the sale of a $2.7 million blueberry farm and breach of contract issues. 

Royal Bank of Canada v. Seikhon Farms et al., 2014 BCSC No. B081815, Vancouver Registry
Chris was co-counsel in defending a large Abbotsford farming operation in an action brought by the Royal Bank for $800,000. We third-partied several other businesses involved in the transaction in question. One of the third parties was in bankruptcy and applied for an absolute discharge, which would have prevented our client from continuing the third party claim. We argued against the application and it was dismissed. The case was settled soon after this.

Sidhu v. Sever, 2014 BCPC No. 20971, Abbotsford Registry
Chris represented the claimant in a breach of contract action regarding a construction dispute. After a four day trial, our client was awarded judgment. The judgment was unique in that the court accepted our client’s argument for compensation based on contractual restitution under the principles of quantum meruit.

Waterston v. Kerr, 2013 BCPC 148

Chris obtained an award for damages for client in this case involving a breach of contract. The defendant also brought a counterclaim against his client. Chris engaged a geotechnical engineer expert and and was successful in securing the dismissal of the counterclaim.

R v. Sodyl, 2013 BCPC 213

Chris’ client was charged with possession of a controlled substance. We brought an application for exclusion of the evidence pursuant to Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the stop of the vehicle was illegal, our client was not provided a timely right to counsel, and the grounds for the arrest were inadequate. As such, the search was deemed to be unreasonable. The evidence was excluded and the client was acquitted of the charges.

A-1 Insulators v. Lalli Development Ltd., 2013 BCPC No. 24242, Richmond Registry
In this decision, Chris successfully defended an application by the defendant that the BC Provincial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an action brought on a judgment. Accordingly the action was allowed to proceed.