Types of the cases that we participate in our practice:
We are frequently consulted by individuals who want to appeal a decision of the BC Supreme Court. Although we were not original trial counsel, we have successfully appealed numerous decisions. See for instance the recent decision of Toor v. Toor  BCJ No. 1428 where the plaintiff was not happy with a very low jury verdict. On appeal a new trial was ordered because of inconsistencies in the jury verdict. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Just v. BC also started as a case we took over after it was initially lost.
See Case: (Just v. BC)
Class actions in BC can involve anything from products liabilities to pension litigation to systemic sexual assault. We have recently completed a complex class action based on systemic sexual assaults against cadets associated with HMCS Discovery in Stanley Park. The case involved a $10 million claim against the Federal government. See White v. Canada.
This litigation has included stock fraud litigation (Huff v. Donnelly), fiduciary cases (Jacks v. Davis) and pension fund litigation (Hockin v. Bank of BC). We have recently appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada on a pension fund case (Buschau v. Rogers).
We were the plaintiff’s counsel in the ground breaking Supreme Court of Canada decision of Just .v BC. This decision for the first time established liability against a government entity for negligence. We have subsequently sued the government of BC many times in personal injury cases to establish a plaintiff’s entitlements to compensation. (Also see the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Lewis v. BC).
We have experience suing on behalf of plaintiffs who have been publicly defamed. (Grassi v. Vancouver).
See Case: (Grassi v. Vancouver)
John Laxton QC began his legal career as a labour lawyer in this province. The firm continues this tradition by representing plaintiffs in a litigation context in wrongful dismissal claims and long term disability matters. In some cases issues of bad faith arise in these contexts which have to be properly evaluated. We also have for many years been involved in negotiating employment contracts in the media and television industry representing some of the key personalities in the industry.
We have extensive experience in the area of medical malpractice litigation both before a judge or jury. Many of these cases require substantial preparation. We have a proven record of being highly successful in this area. (Lee v. Richmond Hospital, $7 million claim; Jones v. Rostvig ; Chattu v. Pankratz). Medical malpractice cases can arise in different situations. We have litigated perforated bowels and liposuction cases successfully before a jury. Similarly we have successfully litigated medical malpractice cases involving infants (Duncan v Kemp ; Bastian v Dr Mori). Each case must be examined carefully on its facts with the help of specialized professionals.
See Case: (Lee v. Richmond Hospital, Judgment: June 7, 2002), (Lee v. Richmond Hospital, Judgment: April 2, 2002), (Jones v. Rostvig), (Chattu v Pakratz), (Duncan v. Kemp, Bastian v. Dr. Mori, Judgment: Dec 21, 1990), (Bastian v. Dr. Mori, Judgment: June 8, 1990), (Bastian v. Dr. Mori, Judgment: May 15, 1990)
Occupiers’ liability is concerned with the responsibility of those who control property. The claim arises when a patron at a restaurant, store or arena for example suffers personal injuries. We have successfully represented a plaintiff who fell over a banister at the PNE beer garden (Kniblock v. PNE)
See Case: (Kniblock v. PNE)
Our firm has litigated most of the important pension cases in BC. The important case of Hockin v. Bank of BC involved a $60 million surplus claimed by the members of the pension plan.
See Case: (Hockin v. Bank)
Whether the case arises from an automobile injury, a sports injury or an injury arising from medical malpractice, our firm has been on the cutting edge of expanding both liability and damage claims for plaintiffs. Our firm went to the Supreme Court of Canada to increase damage recovery for plaintiffs with the recognition of a tax gross up claim. This is now a common damage claim for seriously injured plaintiffs in this province. With respect to liability we have represented plaintiff who have been injured in sporting activities and by rocks falling on highways. In Just v. BC we took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada to obtain judgment for the plaintiff against the government of BC for a plaintiff who was injured by a rock falling onto his car when driving on the highway. In Kwok v. BC we represented the plaintiff in his suit against the BC Ferry Corp. where a ferry ran over his boat killing his wife and child. In Harrison v. Biggs (the ball and chain case) we represented Mr Harrison in a case where a stag resulted in serious injury to the groom. We have continually pushed the boundary for higher damage claims by advancing new claims for damages and taken on new and interesting liability cases.
See Case:($ 3.8 million for Dystonia Injury from Car Arm – Whetung v. Revy August 28, 2007), (Brennan v. Singh, Marr Contrators and Midtown Truck Services), (Just v. BC), (Kwok v. BC, 1), (Kwok v. BC, 2), (Harrison v. Biggs), (Scarff v. Wilson, Judgment: Febuary 5, 1990), (Scarff v. Wilson, Judgment: November 25, 1988), (Zapf v. Muckalt, Judgment: September 1, 1995), (Zapf v. Muckalt, Judgment: December 3, 1996)
We have sued automobile manufactures for defects in their products which have caused personal injury. In McEvoy v. Ford, a Ford truck had a defect which caused the death of Mr. McEvoy. The transmission in this truck was defective and slipped from park into a powered reverse. As a result Mr McEvoy was run over by his own truck.
Serious injuries in sports can sometimes lead to litigation. We have represented numerous plaintiffs who have been injured during sporting events. These individuals have recovered very high awards. (Zapf v. Muckalt and Unruh v. Webber.)
See Case: (Robitaille v. Vancouver Hockey Club), (Zapf v. Muckalt, Judgment: December 3, 1996), (Zapf v. Muckalt, Judgment: September 1, 1995), (Unruh v. Webber, Judgment: March 2, 1994), (Unruh v. Webber, Judgment: November 6, 1992), (Gerak v. BC, Judgment: December 11, 1984), (Gerak v. BC, Judgment: October 7, 1983)