My Cases

SIGNIFICANT CASES I HAVE LITIGATED

QB v. WIM 2014 BCSC 219

Hathaway v. Hathaway 2014 BCCA 310

JEH v. PLH 2014 BCSC 125

Bodine v. Bodine-Shah 2014 BCCA 191

Prpich v. Prpich, 2013 BCSC 606 – 2013/04/09
Supreme Court

Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132 – 2013/03/19
Court of Appeal

This appeal, arising from the trial of a matrimonial dispute, concerns the appropriate exercise of a judge’s discretion to reopen a trial in order to receive further submissions and evidence after judgment had been delivered. Following a three day summary trial the chambers judge delivered her reasons for judgment on April 15, 2011: 2011 BCSC 485. After release of that judgment, an application to reopen the trial was brought by the appellant wife, Ms. Moradkhan. The application did not complete in the allotted time, and the judge invited the parties to make written submissions. Both parties made additional submissions, including submissions on matters that were not part of the application to reopen. They both filed additional evidence. Based on these additional submissions and evidence, and without a further oral hearing, the judge delivered supplementary reasons for judgment on August 25, 2011, almost entirely replacing her earlier judgment: 2011 BCSC 1157. A final, clarifying judgment was released several months later on May 17, 2012: 2012 BCSC 722. On appeal, the wife argued that the judge’s acceptance of further submissions and evidence, and the manner in which the post-trial proceedings were conducted was “procedural mayhem”, which led to a result that was profoundly unfair. In her factum, the wife sought an order setting aside the August 25, 2011, judgment. The husband, argued that the judge properly exercised her discretion to reopen the trial. He cross appealed the judge’s decision to reapportion the division of family assets in favour of the wife. The judge’s decision to reopen and recast almost her entire judgment was an error. The judge also erred in reconsidering and recasting her judgment by adopting an informal procedure that was not procedurally fair to the wife. The wife’s appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Prpich v. Prpich, 2012 BCSC 1498 – 2012/10/11
Supreme Court

Ouellette v. Ouellette, 2012 BCCA 145 – 2012/04/02
Court of Appeal

Appeal from various aspects of two orders made following a trial dealing with the division of family assets as well as child and spousal support. Held: appeal allowed in part. The trial judge erred in treating a truck owned by the appellant’s business as a family asset based on a misapprehension of counsel’s concession. He also erred in declining reapportionment of the family home on the basis that he disbelieved the appellant’s evidence regarding the extent of renovations to the home; the same factors that supported reapportionment of the business should have been applied to determine that an equal division was unfair. The judge properly declined to consider disposition costs when valuing the business, as the appellant did not intend to sell his interest, making such costs hypothetical and speculative. The judge did not err in determining the respondent was entitled to spousal support, but he made several errors in the calculation of the appellant’s income for the purpose of determining spousal and child support.

Brown v. Douglas, 2011 BCCA 521 – 2011/12/16
Court of Appeal

Summary trial judge below had erred in concluding that court had “no evidence” of damage that might possibly be due to alleged misrepresentations made by defendants to plaintiffs. Accordingly, he had erred in dismissing the action. Discussion of “damage” vs. “damages” and obligation of a party responding to an application for summary trial, to take all reasonable steps to prepare his or her case. If not, responding party risks having judgment made against him or her.

J.E.H. v. P.L.H., 2013 BCSC 752 – 2013/05/01

Hallgren v. Fry, 2013 BCCA 15 – 2013/01/15
Court of Appeal Highlighted

The issues on appeal were settled prior to the hearing. The cross appeal from a Supreme Court order concerning the division of family assets and spousal support is allowed in part. The trial judge made an error in principle in his valuation of the husband’s professional corporation. Fairness required the value of its short term investments to be based on investment statements current during the extended trial. The other grounds on the cross appeal are dismissed. The trial judge made no reviewable error in valuing a strata office property, declining to award retroactive spousal support, and refusing to award special costs.

Devine v. Devine, 2012 BCCA 509 – 2012/12/17
Court of Appeal

The appellant alleged three errors in the trial judge’s disposition of certain family assets: (a) the finding that the appellant’s shares in a company referred to as 812Co had been “customarily and constantly” used for a family purpose, thus making it a family asset; (b) the order that the respondent receive an in specie division of the appellant’s shares in 812Co and a company referred to as 412Co; and (c) failing to consider evidence that supported a partial reapportionment of a company referred to as 2002Co. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The evidence did not support a finding that the appellant’s shares in 812Co had been customarily and constantly used for a family purpose. The evidence established that dividends from 812Co were used for a family purpose on only two occasions during the eight year marriage which did not satisfy the test of “ordinary use”. The other grounds of appeal were dismissed. Objection to the order for an in specie division was raised for the first time on appeal and there was insufficient evidence to decide the issue. Having regard to the disposition of the appeal regarding 812Co, and taking into account the factors to be considered under s. 65 of the Family Relations Act, the decision not to reapportion 2002Co was not unfair.

Stein v. Stein 2012 BCSC 1662

Stein v. Stein 2011 BCSC 1477

Sarro v. Sarro 2011 BCSC 1010

Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson 2011 BSCS 634

Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick 2011 BCSC 451

JCM v. ANA 2012 BCSC 584

Hausmann v. Klukas 2011 BCSC 1753

JL v. BC Ministry of Children 2010 BCSC 1234

Russell v. Russell May 21, 2010

Camp v. Camp 2004 BCSC 1096; 2006 BCSC 608

Chan v. Siow 2001 BCSC 167

Wong v. Wong 2000 BCSC 1231; 2000 BCSC 47

Yeung v. Yeung 1999 BCSC

Koch v. Koch 1999 BCSC

Massaar v. Kloutil Houser 1996 BCSC

Morgan v. Morgan 1996 BCSC

Hall v. Houle 1995 BCSC

Chutter v. Chutter 2007 BCSC 814

Jevon v. Jevon 2007 BCSC 576

Renwick v. Renwick 2006 BCSC 1502

Rick v. Brandsema 2006 BCSC 595

Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson 2004 BCSC 1630; 2004 BCCA 467; 2006 BCCA 158; 2003 BCSC 1538

N. v. C. 2003 BCSC 1285

Skazlic v. Skazlic 2003 BCSC 1207

Cowan v. Cowan 2003 BCSC 817

Ebrahim v. Ebrahim 2003 BCCA 94; 1997 BCSC; 2002 BCSC 939; 2002 BCSC 466

Spencer v. Spencer 2002 BCCA 265

T. v. H. 2002 BCSC 1827

Kits v. Kits 2001 BCCA 284

Spanier v. Spanier 1998 BCSC

Chan v. Chan 1997 BCCA

Spencer v. Spencer 2002 BCCA 265

Ekland v. Sangsari BCCA 1996

McNeil v. McNeil BCSC 1995

Wong v. Wong 1991 BCSC; 1992 BCSC

Wei v. Cao 2009 BCCA 268

James v. James 2009 BCCA 261

Chutter v. Chutter 2009 BCCA 177; 2008 BCCA 507

Scott v. Scott 2008 BCCA 457

Laxton v. Coglon 2008 BCCA 414

Myers v. Myers 2008 BCSC 1024; 2008 BCSC 1235

Laxton v. Coglon 2008 BCSC 772; 2006 BCSC 1688; 2006 BCSC 181; 2004 BCSC 779; 2003 BCSC 910; 2003 BCSC 11

Olney v. Raineville 2008 BCSC 753

Rick v. Brandsema 2007 BCCA 96; 2007 BCCA 549; 2007 BCCA 217

Wei v. Cao 2008 BCSC 266

Renwick v. Renwick 2007 BCCA 521

Pilgrim v. Pilgrim 2007 BCSC 1370

Stein v. Stein 2007 BCCA 187; 2006 BCCA 391

Austin v. Austin 2006 BCCA 253; 2005 BCSC 928

Hancock v. Hancock 2006 BCSC 411

Borgstrom v. Borgstrom 2005 BCSC 1041; 2004 BCSC 605

D. v. G. 2004 BCSC 1239

S. v. L. 2003 BCSC 1892

R. v. R. 2003 BCSC 1440; 2003 BCCA 249

R. v. R. 2003 BCSC 556

Heathcote v. Heathcote 2002 BCSC 163

Fuller v. Fuller 2001 BCSC 1244; 2001 BCSC 1154

Kritharis v. Kritharis 2001 BCCA 443

6 thoughts on “My Cases

  1. I was present when Ms. Lang made her closing argument in this case and she was absolutely awesome. Ms. Lang’s client was blown away with how Ms. Lang handled this case.

  2. Pingback: Lawdiva: 2010 in review « Lawdiva's Blog

  3. Hurrah! to you for Chutter, Brandsema and Ebrahim et al: case decisions that I have relied on in my arguments in Court and the fact that the cases are well-written and quotable is due to your lawyerly skill and knowledge as lead counsel. You did your homework thoroughly and made the argument in a way the Court and the rest of us could follow. And we who rely on your cases and our clients benefit by your work. THANK YOU. from: Anna Perry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s