The Trusted Name in Family, Civil and Criminal Law Matters

Sidhu v. Gill, 2007 BCSC 1208

The Plaintiff was assaulted by the Defendant at work. The Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant with a 2×4 piece of wood and received injuries as a result of the attack. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for assault and battery. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff was not entitled to sue him because of section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act or the action be dismissed because of the delays by the Plaintiff in pursuing the case.

The Court found for the Plaintiff such that the matter was not covered by section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act, which allowed the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant because the Defendant was not acting in the course of his employment when he assaulted the Plaintiff. The Defendant therefore was not covered by section 10(1) of the Workers Compensation Act. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s argument that the case against him should be dismissed because of the delays of the Plaintiff in pursuing the matter.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc1208/2007bcsc1208.html?resultIndex=1

Sohi v. Sohi, 2015 BCSC 1043

This was a family law case in which the wedding jewelry primarily gifted to the Claimant was kept by the Claimant’s mother-in-law when the Claimant and the Respondent husband separated. The Respondents were the Claimant’s husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law.

The Court divided the wedding jewelry equally between the Claimant and the Respondent husband and found that the wedding jewelry had been kept by the Claimant’s mother-in-law, the mother of the Respondent husband. The mother-in-law was ordered to compensate the Claimant for the value of the jewelry in the sum of $57,000 and those funds were to be divided equally between the Claimant and Respondent husband.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc1043/2015bcsc1043.html?resultIndex=1

Sohi v. Sohi, 2017 BCSC 720

This was the decision on costs by the trial judge in this matter. The trial judge awarded 60% of the Claimant’s special costs against the Respondent mother-in-law in favour of the Claimant and also ordered that the costs of the father-in-law were to be paid by the mother-in-law, which is known as a Sanderson Order. The Claimant and the Respondent husband were each ordered to bear their own costs

The court made significant findings of lack of credibility against the Respondent father-in-law and also the Respondent husband and this was likely the reason that no costs were awarded to the Respondent father-in-law and the Respondent husband, despite the action against them being dismissed.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc720/2017bcsc720.html?autocompleteStr=2017%20BCSC%20720&autocompletePos=1

Hansra v. Hansra, Oral Reasons Court of Appeal No. CA43469, Madam Justice Fenlon

This case is significant for the fact that the Court granted leave to appeal an Order made by the trial judge relating to costs. The trial judge had awarded special costs against the husband because his credibility was compromised, he did not comply with Orders for disclosure of documents, he sabotaged the family business and he was in contempt of Court Orders not to be present at the family business. The husband then filed essentially a reconsideration of that decision and the Judge reversed himself and deducted the costs award by 25%. The Claimant wife obtained leave to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal and leave was granted by Madam Justice Fenlon for this to take place.

Hansra v. Hansra, 2017 BCCA 199

The Claimant appealed the trial judge’s decision to reduce his costs decision by 25% as an error of law. The Court of Appeal agreed and reinstated the original decision of an award of 100% of the Claimant’s special costs. The Court of Appeal also ruled that a trial judge no longer has unfettered discretion to reopen a matter before a court order has been entered.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2017/2017bcca199/2017bcca199.html?resultIndex=1

Hansra v. Hansra, 2017 BCSC 404

This is a Decision on special costs by Registrar Nielsen. The total claim for special costs was approximately $198,000. Registrar Nielsen reduced some of the special costs and awarded a total of $179,000 in special costs against the Respondent husband. The Decision is relevant as the Court deals with secretarial and paralegal time as well as travel time to and from court.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc404/2017bcsc404.html?autocompleteStr=2017%20BCSC%20404&autocompletePos=1

Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 2017 BCSC 2083

This was a family law case in which the husband separated from the wife and their three children and basically left them without any support to pay the mortgage, child support and spousal support. The law firm took the case on after the Claimant had been to a number of counsel and the matter had not proceeded to a final resolution. Virk Law Group took over the case and dealt with it efficiently and obtained basically 100% reapportionment of the matrimonial home in the Claimant’s wife’s favour as well as retroactive child and spousal support and an award of costs, which essentially resulted in the Claimant wife receiving the matrimonial home, a very favourable result for the Claimant wife and the children.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc2083/2017bcsc2083.html?resultIndex=1

H. v. A.M., 2016 BCSC 1664

The parties were unmarried and had a one-night stand which produced a child from the encounter. The Respondent contacted the Claimant and advised him she was pregnant and this resulted in a paternity test, which conclusively proved that the Claimant was the father of the child. After the birth of the child, the Claimant agreed to pay child support under an Order in the Provincial Court of British Columbia. The Respondent mother obtained sole guardianship of the child. The Claimant father did not receive any independent legal advice when he entered into an agreement to award sole guardianship to the Respondent mother.

At trial, the Claimant father sought joint guardianship and increased parenting time. The Court granted the Claimant father joint guardianship as well as additional parenting rights and responsibilities and dealt with the father paying child support.

This case is significant for the fact that the Court ruled that the Claimant father, who had previously given up guardianship rights was, in fact, entitled to be a joint guardian of the child given the fact situation in this matter.

The Court also awarded costs of the trial to the Claimant father to be paid by the Respondent mother.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1664/2016bcsc1664.html?resultIndex=1

Jaswal v. Parmar, 2016 BCSC 1552

This was a family law case and the issue in the matter was with respect to defamation by the Respondent wife and her father-in-law. After the parties separated, the Respondent wife went to India and filed what is known as a First Information Report (“FIR”) with the Indian police making various false and unfounded allegations against the husband. The false allegations made by the Respondent wife, such as that the Claimant husband only married her to retain entry to Canada and that he had taken monies from her and her family members, were published in a local newspaper in Punjab and in the Indo-Canadian Times Newspaper, which was circulated and subsequently ended up being published in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.

At trial the Judge dismissed the action against the father-in-law but found that the Respondent wife had defamed the Claimant husband and awarded damages and costs against the Respondent wife.

This case is significant for the fact that a court will allow a claim for defamation if a party attends another jurisdiction where the marriage took place and then files reports of false and unfounded claims which are then published and distributed to the public in India and subsequently end up being published in Canada and in particular, British Columbia. In this case, the facts and events relate to a marriage that took place in India but the same argument could be used for any other jurisdiction and part of the world.