Erlandson v. Roufosse
Massouras v. Lucier
Koch v. Walker
Hewstan Auchinleck Canadian Human Rights Commission
Reyes v. Marley
Hutchinson v. Holm
Plackova v. Turcott
Plackova v. Turcott et al
Plackova v. Turcott et al
Hale v. Noa
Jordan v. Fortier et al
Read v. ICBC
Jordan v. Fortier
Schatroph v. Preston Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Ltd
Carlson v. GMAC Leasco Ltd. et al
Bain v. Rodrigue
Cavalieri v. Bott et al
Mora v. Chan
Todoruk v. Trapp
Davies v. Larabie et al
Figueroa v. Fitzpatrick and Fitzpatrick
Wilson v. McCoy
O'Mara v. Son, Kim et al
Ross v. Henriques
Davie v. Wilson
Chang v. Feng
Garcha v. Gill
Garcha v. Gill
Wynnyk v. Bath
Knauf v. Chao
Mariano v. Campbell
Mariano v. Campbell
Kosko v. Collie et al
Carroll v. Passant
Good v. Gillales
McCulloch v. Isaac
Van Hove v. Boisselle
Jokhadar v. Dehkhodaei
Perry v. Ismail
Bamani-Moghaddam v. Mojdehie
Johnson v. Hogarth
Lennox v. Karim
Lennox v. Karim Judgement
Sheikh v. Struys
Berenjian v. Primus
Gordon v. Krieg
Solar v. Miolla
Dhanoa v. Barlow
Khoddami v. Webber
Ghihor v. Bodalia et al
Lee v Bekasova
Swieczko v. Nemhe
Anderson v. Pieters et al
Anderson v. Pieters et al
Anderson v. Pieters et al
Anderson v. Pieters et al
Ali-Majid v. Yeo et al
Harder v. Halpen
Harder v. Halpen
Berkey v. Sylvestri et al
Gibson v. Zwarn
636894 BC Ltd v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS2995
Anderson v Pieters et al
Heuring v Smith
Atkey v McGee et al.
Hagblom v Ali et al
One West Holdings Ltd v The Owners of Strata Plan, LMS2995


At Pettit and Company we pride ourselves on being on the “cutting edge” of litigation. Because of our innovative approaches, we are regularly asked by some of our clients to design litigation strategy affecting thousands of cases each year. Here are some of our cases. 

Johnstone v Rogic 2019 BCCA 469: This was an appeal by ICBC against the $1.9 million Johnstone trial judgment below.  Tim and Kaitlin defended Ms. Johnstone on appeal.  ICBC focused the appeal on the $1.5 million future income loss award arguing that it was unsupported and excessive.  Based on extensive written and oral submissions by Tim and Kaitlin, the appellate court upheld the trial judge's award.

The Johnstone case has now become an important precedent case in the assessment of future income loss.


precedent setting strata case

One West Holdings Ltd. v Strata Plan LMS 2995 2018 BCSC 707: Tim and Brandon, along with another law firm, represented one of the largest stratas in Vancouver against developer One West (Concord Pacific).  The developer sought to broaden the obligations of production of documents from documents within simply within the control of the strata corporation to all documents in the control of all owners and, indeed, the owners themselves were responsible for producing those documents even though they did not have notice of the application. The strata argued this argument was not supported in the law and could lead to significant prejudice to owners who would come under threat of judicial sanction but had not had notice of the hearing.  The court agreed.

The One West case has now become a precedent case in determining the extent of discovery obligations on the part of strata corporations.

Murray v McIlmoyl 2018 BCSC 2269: Allie was defending Mr. McIlmoyl who had been sued by the plaintiff for personal injuries arising from a 2014 MVA.  Trial had been set for early 2019.  In the meantime, the plaintiff was involved in a subsequent MVA in 2017 and was alleging overlapping injuries from both MVA's.  Nonetheless, the plaintiff sought to press to trial on the 2014 claim while leaving the 2017 claim open.  Allie was successful in adjourning the 2019 trial in order for both claims to be heard at the same time.  The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs in the cause. 


Johnstone v Rogic 2018 BCSC 988: Tim and Setareh represented a client in a successful personal injury action.  The client had been a hardworking manager who was injured in a 2013 MVA and suffered severe, disabling chronic pain with substantial impact on her future earning capacity.  The trial occurred in 2017.  In 2018, the court released reasons, awarding the client $1.9 million in compensation.  This was perhaps the largest verdict in BC history for a soft tissue injury claim.


Heuring v Smith 2018 BCSC 233: Tim defended a motorist who had an accident with a cyclist plaintiff on October 11, 2011 at 13th Street and Grand Boulevard in North Vancouver.  The plaintiff cyclist had been eastbound on 13th Street and the defendant motorist had been northbound on Grand Boulevard.  The accident happened when the defendant motorist advanced into the intersection and came into contact with the plaintiff cyclist.  The court found Tim's client to be very credible and found that the plaintiff cyclist had failed to stop at the stop sign at the intersection, then failed to dismount before riding along the south crosswalk and then failed to ensure that the defendant motorist saw him.  The defendant was attempting to safely cross the intersection but failed to see the plaintiff cyclist.  At trial, the plaintiff cyclist claimed that the motorist was 85% - 95% to blame for the accident and made a substantial claim for damages in excess of $198,627.  Tim defended the case with the result that the plaintiff was held 40% responsible for causing the accident and was awarded somewhat in excess of $67,346.62.  The plaintiff was not awarded costs.

SUCCESSFUL costs outcome

Anderson v Pieters 2017 BCSC 954: The plaintiff sought to tender into evidence at trial a significant body of questionable expert evidence.  Tim Pettit and Kaitlin Green represented the defendant Glen Pieters, among others.  Tim was successful in obtaining a court decision disallowing many specific claims for costs brought by the plaintiff as well as the court time spent addressing the admissibility of this questionable expert evidence.  This included denial of the costs of Dr. Blaskovich, a chiropractor, Dr. Sass, an optometrist, and Dr. Sank, a family doctor.  The specific reasons for the exclusion of their opinions may be found in cases cited below.

successful defence of strata corporation

636894 B.C. Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2995(BC. Prov. Ct. - April 2017): Amanda Koralewicz defended one of the largest strata corporations in Vancouver in respect to a water damage claim.  In November 2015, a heavy rainfall caused an exterior planter box to overflow with water, causing flooding into the claimant's adjoining strata unit.  The unit owner sued the strata corporation for negligence.  However, the evidence at trial established that the strata corporation had a reasonable inspection schedule to check for potential flooding issues and otherwise took reasonable steps in regards to such issues.  The claimant failed to prove any negligence against the strata corporation and the court dismissed the claimant's case with costs against the claimant.   


Kang v. Kadosh, 2016 unreported (BC. Prov. Ct.): Kaitlin Green defended a retired couple who were rear-ended by a semi truck while stopped and waiting to merge onto Highway 99. The driver of the semi claimed the Kadoshes were responsible for the accident. Kaitlin introduced eyewitness evidence that another driver, who had fled the scene, was responsible. The court found the defendants not responsible for the accident.  


Ali-Majid v. Yeo et al2016 BCSC Oral Reasons for Judgment before Master Caldwell.  Vanessa Marshall successfully represented the defendants on a procedural question going to entitlement to oral discovery.  The plaintiff had commenced her action in the Fast Track stream of litigation which limits oral discovery to 2 hours only.  When the parties had the matter removed from Fast Track litigation, the plaintiff tried to argue that the defendants' rights of oral discovery were still restricted to only 2 hours.  Vanessa successfully argued that the defendants should be entitled to full rights of oral discovery and the court granted a further five hours of Examination for Discovery time to Vanessa's clients.


Anderson v. Pieters et al. 2016 BCSC 1244: Tim Pettit successfully challenged the opinion evidence of Dr. Sass, an optometrist, and, specifically, on whether or not an optometrist could provide opinion evidence diagnosing a brain injury.  In the circumstances of the case, the court excluded Dr. Sass' opinion evidence in its entirety. 


Anderson v. Pieters et al. 2016 BCSC 1243: Tim Pettit successfully challenged expert chiropractic evidence authored Dr. Blaskovich that sought to prove a cervical ligamentous injury on the basis of DMX Motion X-Ray technology.  Tim challenged the expert evidence on the basis that it was late and that is was not scientifically reliable.  The court agreed that the expert evidence did not meet the test of reliability and held that the report was inadmissible.  The court also held that the report should be excluded due to the lateness of its service and the prejudice that the late service had caused on the trial process.   


Anderson v. Pieters et al. 2016 BCSC 889: In this decision, Tim Pettit successfully argued for the exclusion of the expert report of Dr. Leslie Sank on various grounds including lateness of service, lack of qualifications and substantial adoption of the content from an online article into the doctor's report without proper acknowledgement of authorship.  The court held the entire report inadmissible. 


Swieczko v. Nehme 2016 BCSC 399: Tim Pettit and Amanda Koralewicz represented David Swieczko, a young computer game designer, who had been seriously injured in a car accident.  David had been in the midst of making a left turn on Westminster Highway when his vehicle was T-boned by another motorist.  ICBC initially held David 100% responsible for the accident.  Following trial of the action, the court held that the defendant Nehme entered the intersection on a late amber or early red traffic light and, therefore, held the defendant 100% responsible for the accident.  The court awarded David $194,475.92 plus costs and disbursements for his injuries.


Lee v. Bekasova, 2015 BCSC Oral Reasons for Judgment before Master Baker: Kasia Koltunska was defending Ekaterina Bekasova in respect to a claim for personal injuries brought by Ms. Lee, a restaurant owner.  In response to claims for lost income, Kasia obtained broad orders for production of key business records that were ultimately of great assistance in resolving the law suit.  As well, the court was critical as to the response materials served by Ms. Lee on the application and ordered costs against Ms. Lee for the application. This decision reinforced earlier decisions such as Zecher v Josh 2011 BCSC 311 as to the importance of adequate response materials on application and the cost consequences that can follow in the absence of same.  

Successful defence against INJURY CLAIM

Berenjian v. Primus 2013 BCSC 172: Tim Pettit defended a motorist against a pedestrian who brought a claim for $30,940 for injuries and other losses.  Pettit and Company was successful in limiting damages to $4,500 by use of surveillance evidence showing the pedestrian engaged in jogging from downtown Vancouver to West Vancouver some six weeks after the accident.  

Reporting on the Berenjian case can be found here

Successful defence of home inspector

Gordon v. Krieg2013 BCSC 842: Tim Pettit defended a home inspector against a $500,000 plus claim alleging faulty inspection.  Pettit and Company was successful in limiting damages against the home inspector to $306 by use of an exclusionary clause.

success defence against Injury Claim

Sheikh v. Struys2012 BCSC 1071: Vanessa Marshall defended a motorist against a driver who brought a claim for $31,004 for injuries and other losses.  Vanessa was successful in having the case dismissed entirely with costs payable to our client with a finding that the plaintiff was entirely responsible for the accident.

disclosure application win

Gibson v. Zwarn2012 BCSC Oral Reasons for Judgment before Master Baker: Vanessa Marshall succeeded in getting the plaintiff's diary produced from the date of the motor vehicle accident to the date that the Writ of Summons (now Notice of Civil Claim) was filed with the Registry. The plaintiff's lawyer asserted that he had instructed the plaintiff to keep a diary, but the evidence indicated that the plaintiff had kept a diary leading up to and at the time of the motor vehicle accident, and that she continued to keep a diary not solely on the instructions of her lawyer but primarily for other purposes at least to the time that the lawsuit was commenced. Further,  the plaintiff was ordered to produce a log of assistance that a friend had provided the plaintiff because there was insufficient evidence to meet the test for privilege. The plaintiff was also ordered to produce particulars of her claim for past income loss, despite the fact that the claim was complicated and included multiple sources of income.