The Trusted Name in Family, Civil and Criminal Law Matters
At Virk Law Group, we treat you and your legal matter with professionalism, confidentiality and respect. We have over 20 years of experience dealing with family, civil and criminal law matters. We can also guide you with a collaborative approach through settlement discussions, drafting legal agreements or the mediation of your legal matter.
Parmjit S. Virk email@example.com
Parm began his law career in England and Wales in November 1990 and was called to the British Columbia Bar on November 14, 1997. Parm practiced primarily in the area of family law, having worked in Abbotsford and Surrey. He has also practiced personal injury, insurance defence work, and civil litigation disputes. However, since 1997 Parm has continued to predominantly practice
family law. Parm worked in a firm atmosphere and then ventured out as a sole practitioner in 2008 to form Virk Law Group focusing primarily on the area of family law. Parm was born and raised in England and educated at Cardiff University. He is fluent in English, Punjabi and conversational Hindi. Parm has been involved in many successful mediations which have resulted in substantial savings for clients. Parm’s flexible schedule allows for evening appointments to accommodate clients’ busy schedules.
Parm provides sound legal advice to clients in family, civil and criminal matters. Parm is a strong advocate of mediation and pursuing court proceedings as a last resort where appropriate in the best interests of the client’s needs. Parm and his team of 2 experienced Paralegals work together to help clients secure the best possible outcome for their case with the least financial emotional cost possible.
Parm is an avid cyclist, including road and trail riding. He is a world traveler, reader, soccer fan and purveyor of the arts. He supports local charities and community events, including Devotion to Motion and Kabaddi.
Andrea MacDonald Paralegal firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrea began working with Parm in October 2005. She is a graduate of the Capilano College Paralegal Program and has more than 18 years of experience in family and civil matters. Upon graduating from Capilano, Andrea worked for a sole practitioner in Vancouver with a focus on family law for 3 years and then for a large firm in Downtown Vancouver working in labour/employment law
for 3.5 years. In 2005 she moved to Surrey and began her career with Parm, returning to family law. At Virk Law Group, Andrea works with Parm and clients on family law files. In her free time, Andrea enjoys cooking, hiking, yoga, cycling and spending time with family.
Renee Maniquet Paralegal email@example.com
Renee obtained her certificate in the Legal Administrative Assistant program at Capilano University in 1991. After working for several years, Renee continued her studies at Capilano University and earned her Paralegal Certificate in 2004 with Honours. Renee has more than 25 years’ experience in working in the areas of family law and civil matters. At Virk Law Group, Renee works with
Parm and clients on family and personal injury files. Renee joined Virk Law Group in August 2008. In her spare time, Renee enjoys yoga, hiking, snowshoeing, baking and spending time with her family.
Our Areas of Practice
Nullity / Annulment
Cohabitation / Separation Agreement
Claims against in-laws
Child / Spousal Support
Guardianship / Contact Orders / Custody / Parenting Time
Asset / Property Division
Child Apprehension by the MCFD
Peace Bond (Recognizance)
Estate / Civil Litigation
Wills Variation Cases
Trustee & Executor Disputes
Claims by Beneficiaries
Dog Bite Cases
Slip & Fall Cases
Selected Cases and Articles
Assault and Battery
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.
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.
Costs in a Family Law Matter
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.
Costs – Credibility, Contempt of Court Orders
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.
Costs – Credibility, Contempt of Court Orders
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.
Costs – Credibility, Contempt of Court Orders
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.
Division of Assets, Child Support & Spousal Support
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.
Unmarried Parties, Guardianship, Costs
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.
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.