My Cases


Lin v. Wang 2019 BCSC 1169

Aslanimehr v. Hashemi 2019 BCSC 804

Nolin v. Ramirez, 2019 BCSC 934 (Appeal from Arbitrator’s Award)

F.J.V. v. W.K.S., 2019 BCCA 67

Gil-Eldh v. Branyik 2018 BCCA 98

Bockhold v. Bockhold 2018 BCSC 1488

M.A.N.R. v. D.J.S., 2018 BCSC 2136

E.C. v. G.C., 2017 BCSC 817

Petley-Saba v. Saba 2017 BCSC 667

Hsieh v. Lui 2017 BCCA 51

Hsieh v. Lui 2015 BCSC 1438

Kalafchi v. Yao 2015 BCCA 400

Monteiro v. Monteiro 2015 BCSC 1543

Sarro v. Sarro 2015 BCSC 434

Hsieh v. Lui 2015 BCSC 1438

Sampley v. Sampley 2015 BCCA 51

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

J.E.H. v. P.L.H., 2013 BCSC 752

Hallgren v. Fry, 2013 BCCA 15

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.

Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132

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

Ouellette v. Ouellette, 2012 BCCA 145

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.

J.E.H. v. P.L.H., 2013 BCSC 752

Hallgren v. Fry, 2013 BCCA 15

Devine v. Devine, 2012 BCCA 509

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

JCM v. ANA 2012 BCSC 584

Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2012 BCSC 722

Brown v. Douglas, 2011 BCCA 521

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.

Stein v. Stein 2011 BCSC 1477

Sarro v. Sarro 2011 BCSC 1010

Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson 2011 BSCS 634

Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick 2011 BCSC 451

Hausmann v. Klukas 2011 BCSC 1753

Pasiuk v. Pasiuk, 2011 BCSC 1312

JL v. BC Ministry of Children 2010 BCSC 1234

Olney v. Rainville, 2010 BCCA 155

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

Wu v. Dipopolo, 2008 BCSC 112

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

Russell v. Russell May 21, 2010

Camp v. Camp 2004 BCSC 1096; 2006 BCSC 608

Chan v. Siow 2001 BCSC 167

Morgan v. Morgan, 2001 BCSC 874 —

Wong v. Wong 2000 BCSC 1231; 2000 BCSC 47

Yeung v. Yeung, 1999 BCSC 1727

Koch v. Koch 1999 BCSC

Desjardins v. Desjardins, 1999 BCSC 6321

Magee v. Magee, 1998 CanLII 1997 (BCSC)

Eilers v. Eilers, 1998 CanLII 5638 (BCSC)

Csontos v. Csontos, 1998 CanLII 5594 (BCSC)

Cameron v. Cameron, 1998 CanLII 5009 (BCSC)

Rudersdorfer v. Rudersdorfer, 1998 CanLII 3930 (BCSC)

Tkach v. Mccrary, 1998 CanLII 4340 (BCSC)

Gottselig v. Gottselig, 1997 CanLII 2932 (BCSC)

Sword v. Sword, 1997 CanLII 3920 (BCSC)

R. v. R., 1997 CanLII 1941 (BCSC)

Rettie v. Rettie, 1997 CanLII 1133 (BCSC)

Massaar v. Kloutil Houser 1996 BCSC

Yoneda v. Yoneda, 1996 CanLII 1909 (BCCA)

Morgan v. Morgan 1996 BCSC

Sandrin v. Sandrin, 1996 CanLII 2585 (BCCA)

Hall v. Houle 1995 BCSC

Yoneda v. Yoneda, 1995 CanLII 2662 (BCSC)

Sandrin v. Piros, 1995 CanLII 678 (BCSC)

Thomson v. Thomson, 1994 CanLII 292 (BCSC)

Chutter v. Chutter 2007 BCSC 814

Scott v. Scott, 2007 BCSC 1255

Jevon v. Jevon 2007 BCSC 576

Renwick v. Renwick 2006 BCSC 1502

Cook v. Cook, 2006 BCSC 726

Rick v. Brandsema 2006 BCSC 595

J.K.S. v. H.G.S., 2006 BCSC 1356

G.M.D. v. P.F.P., 2005 BCSC 425

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

C.A.N. v. J.P.C., 2003 BCSC 1285

N. v. C. 2003 BCSC 1285

Skazlic v. Skazlic 2003 BCSC 1207

Cowan v. Cowan 2003 BCSC 817

P.M.S. v. T.S.S., 2003 BCSC 1207

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

J.K.C. v. D.H.C., 2003 BCSC 817

R.M.L.W. v. M.J.W., 2002 BCSC 1488

Spencer v. Spencer 2002 BCCA 265

T. v. H. 2002 BCSC 1827

M.T. v. R.H., 2002 BCSC 1827

Kits v. Kits 2001 BCCA 284

McGrath v. Heenan, 2001 BCSC 186

Dyck v. Webster, 2001 BCSC 38

Spanier v. Spanier 1998 BCSC

Cameron v. Cameron, 1998 CanLII 6154 (BCSC)

Thiel v. Thiel, 1998 CanLII 5218 (BC SC)

Chan v. Chan 1997 BCCA

Crosby v. Jensen, 1996 CanLII 3355 (BCCA)

Spencer v. Spencer 2002 BCCA 265

Ekland v. Sangsari BCCA 1996

McNeil v. McNeil, 1995 CanLII 2365 (BCSC)

Hall v. Houle, 1995 CanLII 1157 (BCSC)

Wong v. Wong 1991 BCSC; 1992 BCSC

Russell v. Russell, 1991 CanLII 1484 (BCSC)

Wong v. Wong, 1992 CanLII 2239 (BCSC)

Bottcher Estate, 1990 CanLII 710 (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

Wu v. Dipopolo, 2008 BCSC 112

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

B.A.C. v. J.J.C., 2004 BCSC 1096

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

R.L.H. v. B.H., 2002 BCSC 1330

Fuller v. Fuller 2001 BCSC 1244; 2001 BCSC 1154

Kritharis v. Kritharis 2001 BCCA 443

Wells v. Watson, 2000 BCSC 1022 (CanLII)

11 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. 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.

  3. Please help me if you can! My children were taken away by court order ex parte. My children have never left me, the judge sided with the Father of the children. I need help. Please.

  4. Here is something you might want to write about:
    Press Release
    For immediate release

    Contact Point Canada: Kate Baggott
    Contact Point Germany: John Paul Balev

    German Resident at Centre of Sensational Canadian Hague Convention Case

    John Paul Balev, a resident of Dreieich, Hessen, is at the centre of a Hague Convention trial to come before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto, Canada on 19 August 2016. Balev, a dual Canadian-Bulgarian is seeking the return of his two children under the International Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.
    Mr. Balev’s wife left Germany with the children bearing a notarized letter of consent permitting her to reside with them in their country of origin from 2 April 2013 until 15 August 2014. On March 17, 2014, Mr. Balev suddenly revoked the permission and demanded his wife return the children to him as unaccompanied minors. He had filed for divorce in the court of Langen, Hessen the previous week without his wife’s knowledge. It is unknown why the Central Authority Accepted the application as the Convention forbids revocation of permission once given.
    It has also since been revealed that Mr. Balev contacted the German Central Authority at the Department of Justice just 7 days after his wife and children left for Canada with his permission. Konstin Keuchler, who works for the Central Authority that governs the Hague convention in Bonn, Germany, has been acting to support Mr. Balev as the “left behind parent” as mandated by the Convention.
    Under German immigration law, the residency permits of foreigners living in Germany are automatically revoked when they have been out of the country for more than 6 months. They are also required to “deregister” their legal residency with the local authorities before leaving. Under German law, neither the children nor their mother are legal residents of Germany and have no automatic right to return.
    In Canada Mr. Balev is represented by lawyer Steven Bookman who was convicted in an $89-million dollar fraud scheme in 1985. The lawyer’s fees are $600 per hour. As the “left behind parent” Mr. Balev has been entitled to Prozess Kostenhilfe, or legal aid, from the German state through the administration of the Hague Convention. The Ontario Court of Appeal is the third of four levels of the Family Court System in Canada. The family has been involved in this case for more than two years. The case will be heard before the Ontario Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall in Toronto on 19 August, 2016.
    Mr. Balev’s wife, Catharine Rose Baggott is better known as Kate Baggott a Canadian short story writer.
    Konstantin Keuchler can be reached through:
    Central Authority (International Custody Conflicts) Federal Office of Justice
    Adenauerallee 99 – 103
    53113 Bonn
    Phone: +49 228 99410 – 5426
    Fax: +49 228 99410 – 5401

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s