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
WCAT No. A1604204
Chris represented the developer of a large construction project in Abbotsford that was fined almost $60,000 in two separate penalty orders for alleged safety contraventions on site. After an initial review, the Review Division doubled the second penalty, increasing the total fine to $90,000. We appealed to WCAT and it was determined the Review Division’s reasoning was flawed. As a result, the second penalty was cancelled altogether and the fine reduced to less than $30,000.
Read More
S.S. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2019; Tribunal Number: GE-19-1950
Chris’ client was denied Employment Insurance benefits after the Commission determined that she had left her job voluntarily. We appealed to the Social Security Tribunal and successfully argued that our client was in fact terminated from employment and therefore she was entitled to EI benefits. She received a retroactive payment and ongoing support during her search for new employment.
Read More
Sargeant v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 893
Chris represented our client in a judicial review application in federal court after his security clearance license was rescinded by Transport Canada following the discovery of a dated arrest in Washington state. His employer terminated him due to the loss of his security clearance. The Court issued an important decision regarding the review of security clearance decisions and procedural fairness regarding the process.
Read More
Sherstobitoff v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCSC 1659
Judicial review – Workers Compensation Board accepted our client’s claim for a back injury sustained on a first day on the job with her new employer. In setting her long-term wage rate, WCB found her to be a ‘temporary’ worker. We argued for our client that her employment was permanent. WCAT dismissed our claim and affirmed the initial WCB decision. We petitioned the BC Supreme Court, and the Court found the WCAT decision was patently unreasonable as it failed to make findings about the words of our client’s oral employment contract. This judicial review presented an interesting intersection of employment law, workers compensation law, and administrative law. Read Chris’ blog post about this case here.
Read More