Cameron (Re), 2020 BCSC 157
Area of Law: Wills and Estates
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril acted for one of two daughters who were fighting over their mother’s competence and ability to handle their mother’s affairs. A six day contested hearing resulted before Mr. Justice Grauer, who has subsequently been appointed to the B.C. Court of Appeal. Mikhael was able to convince the court that it would be unjust to decide the critical issue of who should be Mrs. Cameron’s committee without allowing converting it from a petition proceeding into an action. The end result is that the allegations of the other sister are now able to be challenged, documents can be demanded, examinations for discoveries held, and witnesses subpoenaed to attend Court. The Court also granted Mikhael’s client special costs, meaning that his client’s out of pocket legal expenses was minimal.
Araniva v. RSY Contracting et al, 2019 BCHRT 97
Area of Law: Employment and Wrongful Dismissal
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril helped Ms. Araniva in what might be called a classic case of sexual harassment. Ms. Araniva worked for Mr. Yule in his home office where he made a number of sexually inappropriate remarks and advances. Although the physical contact was at most limited to an uninvited hug, the psychological impact for Ms. Araniva was profound. Despite working there for a period of approximately four months, and ultimately quitting as a result of the sexual advances, the BC Human Rights Tribunal awarded her a lost wage claim equivalent to 12 weeks, the cost of her expert, Dr. Tracey Lindberg, clinical psychologist, and $40,000 as compensation for injury to Ms. Araniva’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect. This is the 2nd largest award for injury to dignity and has resulted in an upwards trend in the amount of BC Human Rights Tribunal damage awards.
Sarband v. Joubin, 2019 BCSC 116
Areas of Law: Family and Divorce, Collections, Debts, and Accounts Receivables
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril acted for Dr. Sarband in enforcing a separation agreement against her ex-husband, who was now a lawyer in British Columbia. A unique aspect of this separation agreement was that the only thing it divided was debt that was incurred on Dr. Sarband’s line of credit but was used to pay for both party’s living expenses while they studied abroad. Mr. Joubin tried to argue that the separation agreement was not the full agreement between the parties and that there was a collateral oral agreement. Mikhael particularly enjoyed cross-examining Mr. Joubin, who was found to not be a particularly strong witness by Mr. Justice Masuhara. Dr. Sarband was ultimately awarded the full amount of debt outstanding of $70,000 as well full indemnity for legal fees.
Ame Distribution Inc. v. Wang, 2019 BCSC 95
Area of Law: Business and Commercial
Lawyer: Vincent Guo
Vincent Guo succeed in opposing an application by the Defendant to re-open the case after his client was successful at a summary trial proceeding in a case involving property damage to industrial machines. The Defendant brought forth fresh evidence alleging that it would change the verdict and argued that there would be a miscarriage of justice if the verdict remained. Vincent convinced Madam Justice Forth that the evidence being tendered, properly interpreted, actually further supported his client’s version of events and reinforced the original verdict. Vincent managed to get costs for his client, and eventually was able to get every single last dollar recovered.
Dauphinee v. White Rock Harbour Board, 2018 BCSC 1286
Area of Law: Real Estate, Property, and Strata Disputes, Appeals and Judicial Reviews
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril assisted Mr. Dauphinee in the first successful use of the oppression remedy under B.C.’s new Societies Act. Mr. Dauphinee was a long-time member of the White Rock Marina and was patiently awaiting the chance to switch from a sailboat wharf slip to a powerboat. His name was on the waitlist for years, and every year he paid a nominal fee to remain on that list. When his turn finally came, the executive felt that they no longer wanted to abide by their own rules and questioned the ethics of existing members having priority over non-members. They refused to assign Mr. Dauphinee the powerboat slip and fiercely defended it. After a full day hearing in Supreme Court before Madam Justice Norrell, Mikhael’s client prevailed handsomely, with the Court finding that the Society was acting in an oppressive and unfairly prejudicial manner towards Mr. Dauphinee. Mikhael was able to also obtain costs for Mr. Dauphinee which put a very healthy dent in his legal expenses.
Ame Distribution Inc. v. Wang, 2018 BCSC 426
Area of Law: Business and Commercial
Lawyer: Vincent Guo
Vincent Guo acted for the Plaintiff in obtaining full judgment of $38,710 in relation to a claim of property damages arising from the Defendant’s failure to properly store industrial machines belonging to the Plaintiff. Exposure to the elements had caused them to rust and become worthless. The Defendant advanced a number of defences that Vincent was able to overcome. Despite the small amount, since this was over the small claims threshold Vincent was able to obtain a nice costs order for his client.
Jacobs v. Yehia, 2018 BCSC 420
Area of Law: Business and Commercial, Collections, Debts, and Accounts Receivables
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril acted for Sam Yehia and the Cambie Malone’s group of companies over a legal saga that beg an its first day of trial in April 2013. By this point the question for the Court was the value of Mr. Jacob’s services as a non-equity quasi-partner over a period of eight years, and also the calculation of interest with respect to some investments that Mr. Jacobs made in the Cambie Malone’s group. The trial on this question lasted twelve (12) days. Despite two high profile downtown lawyers seeking to justify Mr. Jacob’s value as being at least $120,000 per year, Mr. Jacobs was only awarded $70,000 per year for his services, which resulted in overpayments by the Cambie Malone’s group over the years going towards reducing Mr. Jacob’s debt. Most importantly, the Court agreed that the interest was not compounded and that a further reduction on the face value of the interest was required because of the re-investment principle. This was the first BC case to explicitly adopt the re-investment principle.
As a result of the reduction in value Mr. Jacob’s services and the removal of compounding interest, Mikhael was able to assist the Defendants to save over a million dollars ($1,000,000) in liability.
Byron v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2017 BCSC 1125
Area of Law: Appeals and Judicial Review
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril successfully argued on judicial review that his client was denied basic procedural fairness by the office of RoadSafetyBC when his client’s evidence was summarily rejected and contradicted by evidence that was simply assumed, in respect of a review of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition or IRP. Ms. Byron’s evidence was that she was not told about her right to a second test on a different approved screening device with the lower result being the one that determines the penalty, if any. The officer’s evidence was that she told Ms. Byron about her right to a second test from a card, and the only card mentioned was a standard issue Charter card. Our office obtained the standard issue card, which contains no language for a second Approved Screening Device test. Despite this, RoadSafetyBC assumed that the officer must have been referring to a different card that officers carry which would have this language and used this to discredit Ms. Byron.
After striking out the decision reached by RoadSafetyBC a special direction was made from the Supreme Court that RoadSafetyBC could not remedy this lack of evidence upon a re-hearing, and also that the re-hearing had to proceed before a different adjudicator given the troubling reason engaged in by the first one. This case has also been cited by numerous others as setting the standard of review for a breach of procedural fairness.
Poonian v. British Columbia Securities Commission, 2017 BCCA 207
Area of Law: Appeals and Judicial Review, Criminal defense, White Collar Crime, and Civil Forfeiture, Fraud and Misrepresentation
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
Mikhael Magaril acted for Thal and Sharon Poonian before the Court of Appeal in successfully overturning the B.C. Securities Commission’s disgorgement order which made them jointly and severally liable for $7,332,936. The language of the Securities Act did not allow for such orders without an appropriate factual basis, but it became the practice of the commission to issue them routinely. This has now become the leading case on s. 161(1)(g), or disgorgement orders, in British Columbia.
Tahtsa Timber Ltd. v. Yaorun Wood Co. Ltd., 2015 BCSC 1259
Area of Law: Business and Commercial
Lawyer: Vincent Guo
Vincent Guo acted for a Defendant timber company in Prince George to successfully overturn a default judgment that the Plaintiffs had obtained when they had technically complied with the rules for service but it did not come to the personal attention of the Defendant. Despite an earlier judge who assessed damages for the default finding that there was no trialable issue, Vincent was able to convince Mr. Justice Tindale that there were legitimate defences, as well as counterclaims available by the Defendant. The default judgment of $130,987.50 was set aside.
R. v. Green, 2014 BCPC 84
Area of Law: Criminal defense, White Collar Crime, and Civil Forfeiture
Lawyer: Mikhael Magaril
While still in law school, Mikhael Magaril acted for an accused person who was charged with a property offence. The investigating officer, Cst. Pelletier of the Coquitlam RCMP, brought evidence with him to trial that he had neglected to turn over to Crown counsel and was seen for the first time at trial. That evidence suggested that it was someone other than Mr. Green that was the instigator and that there was another witness to the crime. During an adjournment, Cst. Pelletier spoke to this new witness and asked questions that lead to his evidence being tainted, including questions without the tape recorder running. The new witness was led by Cst. Pelletier to give the answers that would support the Crown’s case and continue to incriminate Mr. Green. Following this discovery the charges against Mr. Green were successfully stayed after arguments by Mikhael that continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process.