KSW Lawyers Partner Featured in Canada’s Top 50 Lawyers.
CONTACT
PAY BILL
LINKEDIN
CONTACT
PAY BILL
LINKEDIN
CONTACT
PAY BILL
LINKEDIN
Home
> Lawyer Content
> Blog title on how to fine the perfect lawyer

Successful Cases

Explore our triumphs: Dive into our success cases, showcasing our ability to secure favourable verdicts and settlements for our clients. From personal injury to business disputes, our skilled legal team has a proven track record of delivering positive results. Gain insight into our expertise and how we can help you with your legal needs

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Neiser v. Su, 2014 BCHRT 190
Chris acted for the landlord of a premises in which the tenant alleged discrimination on the basis of a medical disability. The landlord had evicted her following the discovery of a modified electrical panel to support a marijuana grow operation and the tenant’s refusal to allow for repairs to the unit. We applied to dismiss the complaint and the Tribunal granted the application, finding the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and the allegations as merely speculative and conjectural.
Read More
Neiser v. Su, 2014 BCHRT 190
Chris acted for the landlord of a premises in which the tenant alleged discrimination on the basis of a medical disability. The landlord had evicted her following the discovery of a modified electrical panel to support a marijuana grow operation and the tenant’s refusal to allow for repairs to the unit. We applied to dismiss the complaint and the Tribunal granted the application, finding the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and the allegations as merely speculative and conjectural.
Read More
Pringle v. Pringle, 2020 BCSC 75
Chris was co-counsel for the defendant in a case where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant intentionally ran him over with her vehicle. After a six day trial, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for aggravated and punitive damages and found the plaintiff was in fact 50% responsible for the incident.
Read More
A-1 Insulators v. Lalli Development Ltd., 2013 BCPC No. 24242, Richmond Registry
In this decision, Chris successfully defended an application by the defendant that the BC Provincial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an action brought on a judgment. Accordingly the action was allowed to proceed.
Read More
Chohan v. KHK Holdings et. al., 2015 BCPC 131
Chris achieved a successful result for a local Fraser Valley business owner after a three day trial in a matter involving the sale of a $2.7 million blueberry farm and breach of contract issues.
Read More
Royal Bank of Canada v. Seikhon Farms et al., 2014 BCSC No. B081815, Vancouver Registry
Chris was co-counsel in defending a large Abbotsford farming operation in an action brought by the Royal Bank for $800,000. We third-partied several other businesses involved in the transaction in question. One of the third parties was in bankruptcy and applied for an absolute discharge, which would have prevented our client from continuing the third party claim. We argued against the application and it was dismissed. The case was settled soon after this.
Read More
Desrochers v. Teksmed Services, 2013 BCHRT 56
Our client was terminated from employment during a medical leave. The employer applied to dismiss her complaint to the Tribunal, partly because of a concurrent employment standards proceeding. The Tribunal dismissed the employer’s application and found the case had a reasonable prospect of success. It was settled shortly after the decision.
Read More
G.R. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2016 SSTGDEI
Client applied for EI benefits and was denied. The main issue was whether the Appellant lost his employment by reason of his own conduct, specifically being terminated for absenteeism. Chris was able to successfully show that his client’s actions did not constitute misconduct.
Read More
Gibson v Matthies, 2017 BCSC 839
Chris represented the defendant in a claim brought by the plaintiff in relation to a motorcycle accident. After a three-day trial on liability, the Court determined that the plaintiff was 75% responsible for the accident.
Read More