WE ARE A FIRM
of BARRISTERS

bar·ris·ter noun \'ber-ə-stər, 'ba-rə-\

a lawyer called to the Bar who practices as an advocate for his or her clients in the higher courts.

Barristers Bulletin Sign-up

Representative Cases

The following is a list of representative cases in which lawyers of Josephson Associates Barristers have successfully acted for our clients in the course of litigation or dispute resolution.

1. Contractual claims & disputes
   • The Three Tenors New Years' Eve Concert: We acted as counsel for the Los Angeles-based financial backers for The Three Tenors New Year's Eve concert in Vancouver. Our clients put up a multi-million dollar letter of credit to secure The Three Tenors' performance fees in return for ticket revenues. Ticket sales were abysmal exposing our clients to significant loss. We successfully negotiated a settlement of the dispute involving reduced liability exposure for our clients.
2. Corporate & shareholder disputes
   • Shenzhen City Luohu District Industrial Development Company v. Yao: We acted as counsel for a state-owned enterprise from the People's Republic of China. Our client had been defrauded of millions of dollars by a businessman in Hong Kong who fled to Canada with those funds. We successfully obtained judgment for our client after a 73 day trial and collected on the judgment. This was the first time that a major Chinese enterprise had litigated outside of China.
   • Saarnok-Vuus v. Teng: We acted as counsel for an equal shareholder in a real estate investment company. We successfully obtained an order that our client had been oppressed by the other shareholder under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act. The other equal shareholder was ordered to sell her shares to our client at a price determined by the Court.
   • Beatty v. First Exploration Fund (1987) Co.: We acted as counsel for shareholders of a public company. Our clients delivered proxies for the annual general meeting by fax and the chairman of the meeting refused to recognize them. We successfully obtained an order to compel the chairman to count the faxed proxies. This was the first case in which a British Columbia Court held that faxed proxies must be counted at the annual general meeting of a public company.
   • United Pacific Capital Limited v. Piche: We acted as counsel for the minority shareholder of an internet gaming company. The majority shareholder denied that our client had an interest in the company. We successfully settled that dispute but the majority shareholder refused to implement the settlement agreement. The Court ordered him to do so.
3. Partnership disputes
   • CRS Forestal v. Boise Cascade Corporation: We acted as counsel for some of the partners of a partnership. Other partners had diverted a substantial business opportunity in Chile that excluded our clients. We sued the other partners and successfully negotiated a substantial payment for our clients.
4. Intellectual property matters
   • Starbucks Corporation v. Second Cup Ltd.: We acted as counsel for the leading Canadian coffee retailer in an action in which Starbucks sued our client alleging that it had breached Starbucks' trademark. We successfully negotiated a settlement of the litigation for our client.
5. Real estate issues
   • Dave Buck Ford Sales Ltd. v. Home Depot of Canada Ltd.: We acted as counsel for the Canadian subsidiary of Home Depot that had agreed to purchase a commercial property. Shortly before the transaction completed, the municipality changed the zoning. This frustrated our client's re-development plans and it refused to complete the purchase. The seller sued our client to force it to do so. We successfully settled the litigation for our client.
   • Kates v. Hall: We acted as counsel in one of the leading British Columbia cases dealing with the rights and remedies of a landowner in cases of trespass by a neighbour for the purposes of cutting down trees on the landowner's property. We successfully obtained a damage award for our client against the trespassing neighbour.
   • Mariposa Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Dylex Ltd.: We acted as counsel for Dylex Ltd. in a dispute over the existence of terms of the assignment of a lease for a commercial unit in a shopping mall.
6. Franchising and distributorship disputes
   • Brian Jessel Autosport Inc. v. Ford of Canada Ltd.: We acted as counsel for the company that operated a Ford dealership. We successfully obtained an injunction to prevent Ford of Canada Ltd. from terminating our client's dealership agreement.
   • Klassen v. Phantom Manufacturing International Ltd.: We acted as counsel for a Canadian distributor of screen doors on an arbitration brought against two United States distributors who were delinquent in their payment obligations. We successfully obtained a monetary award against each United States distributor and an order dismissing their claims that the arrangement with our client was a franchise.
   • Rockson Music Company Ltd. v. Tylor and Euromusic Marketing Inc.: We acted as counsel for a Canadian distributor of Austrian pianos against a music retailer in Vancouver who was attempting to circumvent our client's exclusive distribution rights for Canada. We successfully obtained an injunction to prevent the music retailer from doing so. This led to the successful settlement of the litigation for our client.
7. Employment relationships
   • Coutts v. Brian Jessel Autosports Inc.: We acted as counsel for the employer, which owned and operated the Ferrari dealership in British Columbia, in a claim in which the employee claimed an entitlement to severance. The employee took the position that he was primarily interested in pursuing an employment opportunity with a new Ferrari dealership and therefore did not need to pursue employment opportunities in another dealership at a lower salary level. The Court found that the employee did not act reasonably in limiting his search for employment to one designated employer and refusing to follow through with the employment opportunities in his accustomed line of work with other high-end car dealerships.
   • Bennett-O'Brien v. Village Green Inns: We acted as counsel for the employer company in a claim brought by the employee for wrongful dismissal and seeking an equity interest in the employer company. The Court found that the terms of a share agreement for an equity interest in the Company had not been settled. The Court found also that while the discussions relating to an equity interest ultimately lacked contractual force, they were nevertheless relevant on the issue of reasonable notice.
   • Reynolds v. First City Trust Company: We acted as counsel for the employer in a claim for wrongful dismissal where the key issue was the employee's efforts to mitigate his damages. The Court found that, on the evidence, the employee was not as diligent as he might have been in finding a suitable position and reduced the length of notice to which he was entitled.
   • Tsawataineuk Band Council: We acted as counsel for the Tsawataineuk Band Council in an employment dispute with its Band Manager. We successfully negotiated a settlement of the employment dispute.
8. Injunctions and other extraordinary remedies
   • Shenzhen City Luohu District Industrial Development Company v. Yao: We acted as counsel for a state-owned enterprise from the People's Republic of China against a Hong Kong businessman who defrauded our client of millions of dollars and fled to Canada with these funds. We successfully obtained a Mareva Injunction at the outset of the litigation that froze all of the assets that the Hong Kong businessman had purchased in British Columbia with the funds misappropriated in China. As a result, when we ultimately obtained Judgment for our client, it was able to look to the frozen assets to collect the Judgment amount.
   • Brian Jessel v. Gary King et al.: We acted as counsel for a minority shareholder of a company. The majority shareholder was siphoning off cash receipts from the company and depositing them in his personal bank account. We successfully obtained an Anton Pillar Order that allowed our client access to the majority shareholder's home and private office and a Mareva Injunction freezing his personal bank account. This led to the successful settlement of the litigation.
   • DirecTV v. Gray; DirecTV v. Sandhu: We acted as counsel in both cases for clients who were engaged in the satellite television industry. DirecTV obtained Anton Pillar Orders and Mareva Injunctions against our clients without prior notice to them. We represented the clients in their defences of the claims against them.
   • Harbin Ding Culture and Education Consulting Services Co. v. Kevin Newman: We acted as counsel for a company from the People's Republic of China whose business was to facilitate the enrollment of Chinese students into Canadian universities. The defendant was an immigration consultant who had misappropriated students' funds that he was to have held in trust for the students. We successfully obtained a Mareva Injunction that froze the defendant's assets. This lead to the successful settlement of the litigation.
   • Hanscomb Consultants Inc. re Collins, Sather, Rautenbach et al.: Three senior employees of a quantity surveying firm left the employment of their employer on a Friday afternoon and formed their own corporation to compete with their employer. They had all been engaged in providing services to their employer's primary client and left in the expectation that the employer's primary client would move with them to their new business entity. We were successful in obtaining an injunction against both the former employees, and the target client, prohibiting the former employees from providing services to the target client in competition with their former employer.