604-879-4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

October 2011

BRITISH COLUMBIA EDITION EDITION

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

8

12

2

Featured Cases:

Family Law; Child Support; Conspiracy

Abuse of Process; Estoppel; Res judicata; Fresh Evidence

Workers’ Compensation; Opportunity to be Heard

Constructive Trust; Negligence of Counsel

Class Actions; Settlement Agreements; Variation of Consent Orders

Legal Research Seminar - Early Bird Pricing Ending October 15: Learn and Earn 6 CPD credits while learning from a panel of research experts on

November 15, 2011

op

Prepare to Win.

O N P O I N TLEGAL RESEARCH

6

12

14

10

“Excellent speakers – I only dream of being as well educated and well spoken.”

“For a lawyer in private practice who wants to research the law with confidence, it was well worth the price of admission.”

“I really enjoyed the course. I found the information very practical and pertinent to my work.”

Sponsored by:

THIRD ANNUAL ONPOINT FEATURE COURSE

Legal Research: From Problems to Solutions 2011

Comments from 2010 attendees: November 15, 2011

The Sutton Place Hotel 9:00 am - 4:00 pm

Earn 6 CPD CrEDits

inCLUDEs 2 HOUrs EtHiCs/PraCtiCE MGMt

COMPOnEnt

“A practical and comprehensive summary of legal research tools and techniques. The presenters really

knew their craft.”

Earn 6 CPD CrEDits

inCLUDEs 2 HOUrs EtHiCs/PraCtiCE MGMt

COMPOnEnt

PB

Ellen Vandergrift, OnPoint Legal Research- Ellen has a winning combination of a keen analytical mind, a clerkship with the Alberta C.A., a stint at Fraser Milner, and a drive to keep digging until she finds the right answer. If it’s out there, Ellen will find it! You will learn from her years of experience when to use what resource and how best to use it.

Our Panel Knows ResearchChair: Sarah Picciotto, Founder of OnPoint Legal Research

Meghan Maddigan, Legal Community Liason, Courthouse Libraries BC- Meghan is the point person for training at the library and is committed to helping lawyers succeed in their practice through outreach. Meghan will show you ways that you can conduct legislative research effectively and efficiently. Prior to joining Courthouse Libraries BC in 2010, Meghan practiced law for five years with a small firm where she gained first-hand experience learning what is required to conduct successful legal research in private practice.

Gregory Pun, Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang, LLP- Greg is Alexander Holburn’s Director of Research and heads the Appeals Practice Advisory Team. As research lawyer, his practice is primarily focused on providing research memoranda to colleagues, and assisting in the preparation and drafting of opinion letters and trial arguments. As head of the Appeals Practice Advisory Team, he assists lawyers inside and outside of the firm with the preparation of all appeal materials and with appellate advocacy.

Legal Research: From Problems to Solutions 2011

OnPoint Legal Research L.C. has been researching for other lawyers for over 12 years. In the third annual presentation of this course, OnPoint research lawyers and guest research

experts will draw from their experience to demonstrate how to map out research strategies, examine which resources to use to tackle various problems, and navigate through electronic sources. We will provide countless “insider” tips, discuss legislative research techniques, and lead an interactive session on how to approach a sample legal issue.

Who should attend?We have created this course for all levels. It is appropriate for senior lawyers wanting a refresher course or needing to be updated on the lastest techniques, junior lawyers wishing to become better researchers, and students wanting to start off their careers with valuable tips from research specialists.

Paralegals will also benefit from this course.

Agenda- Legal Research: From Problems to Solutions 2011

8:30- 9:00 Registration and Pastries and Coffee

9:00- 9:20 Welcome from Sarah Picciotto, Founder of OnPoint

9:20-10:00 Gregory Pun- “Preparing for the Trek”

- The How and Why of legal research - The importance of obtaining the proper facts, instructions, and scope of the research - Ethical and practice management considerations

10:00- 10:30 Ellen Vandergrift- “Starting Out on the Expedition and Staying on the Right Course”

- The importance of paper and online secondary materials in legal research (texts, digests, encyclopedias and course materials) - Tips on the best secondary sources to use and how to make the most of them - Making good research choices- when to stop, when to take a different path, when to check back with the client or supervising lawyer

10:30- 10:45 Coffee break (with pastries)

10:45- 12:00 Ellen and Gregory- “Navigating the Electronic Terrain”

- Insider tips from research lawyers who performs computer research every day - Cost-efficient uses of electronic resources - Pointers on when to use which resource for what task - Tips on how to construct effective searches and manage search results - Noting up as an essential research tool - Important resources for keeping current

12:00- 1:00 Lunch (on own)

1:00- 2:00 Meghan Maddigan- “Tackling Legislative Research Like a Pro”

- Making it modern: How to ensure you are looking at the most current, in-force laws - So many sources, so little time: Where to start and finish when looking at legislation - Working backwards: How to trace specific provisions through time - Who said what: Finding judicial consideration of legislation

2:00- 2:20 Gregory- “Legislative Research- Some Roads Less Travelled” - Points on legislative research (electronic and paper) - Hansard, bills, proclamations, regulations, Court Rules - Old and repealed statutes 2:20- 2:45 Ellen- “Mapping Your Route” - Keeping notes for future research or defend research choices - A review of our Research Checklist

2:45- 3:00 Coffee break (with goodies)

3:00- 4:00 Ellen and Gregory- “Time to Take the Plunge: A Sample Research Issue, Step By Step”

Agenda (cont.)

Date: November 15, 2011- 9:00 to 4:00 (continental breakfast starts at 8:30)Format: Live Program with MaterialsLocation: The Sutton Place Hotel, VancouverPrice: Early Bird (register before Oct.15): Regular: $425; Paralegal: $375; Student: $250 After Oct.15: Regular: $495; Paralegal: $425; Student: $295 SURNAME GIVEN NAME INITIAL

FIRM NAME PHONE EMAIL

Course Registration Form

Earn 6 CPD CrEDits

inCLUDEs 2 HOUrs EtHiCs/PraCtiCE MGMt

COMPOnEnt

Position: SOLE PRACTIONER PARTNER ASSOCIATE STUDENT PARALEGAL OTHER __________ Year of Call: ______

Early Bird Regular -------$425 + $51.00 HST = $476.00 Regular -------$495 + $59.40 HST = $554.40Early Bird Student ------ $250 + $30.00 HST = $280.00 Student ------ $295 + $35.40 HST = $330.40Early Bird Paralegal ----- $375 + $45.00 HST = $420.00 Paralegal ----- $425 + $51.00 HST = $476.00

I’m paying by: Cheque Credit Card (MC or VISA)

CARDHOLDER NAME: CARD NUMBER EXPIRY

SIGNATURE:

By Fax: 604.648.8930 By Mail: OnPoint Law Corporation, 178-2498 W.41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V6M2A7

By Phone: 604.879.4280 Email: info@onpointlaw.com

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

6

6

Waters v. Michie, 2011 BCCA 364Areas of Law: Family Law; Child Support; Conspiracy

Under Appeal: Justice Loo

The appellant was Jodi Lynn Waters. The respondents were

James Alexander Michie and Dawn Lanelle Michie. Mr. Michie and Ms. Waters were married in 1992 and divorced in 1999. In 2001, the former spouses entered into minutes of settlement regarding child and spousal support and division of property. In 2004, Mr. Michie married Ms. Michie. Ms. Waters later alleged that Mr. Michie fraudulently concealed income and property prior to and since the execution of the minutes of settlement to avoid paying child support. Ms. Waters was granted leave to file a statement of claim based on such allegations, and Ms. Michie was included as a party. Ms. Waters claimed that Mr. Michie transferred two properties to Ms. Michie in sham transactions intended to defraud creditors such

BACKGROUND

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

as Ms. Waters. Ms. Waters asserted that Ms. Michie held a 50% in the properties transferred by Mr. Michie, or alternatively, that the said transfers were void under the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Ms. Waters also sought damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. Ms. Michie subsequently filed an application to strike the plea of conspiracy as it raised no reasonable claim. The chambers judge allowed the application and ordered the conspiracy claim struck. On appeal, Ms. Waters argued that the conspiracy plea should have been allowed as against Ms. Michie because the claim was based not on a breach by Ms. Michie of a family law obligation, but on her breach of creditor protection laws. Ms. Waters also cited jurisprudence in which conspiracy claims were allowed to proceed in the family law context.

October 2011

The appeal was dismissed. The Court

of Appeal, citing the obiter in Frame v. Smith (2 SCR 99), considered the policy implications of extending the tort of conspiracy to the family law context, and held that the appellant’s conspiracy claim should be struck as it raised no reasonable claim. The Court ruled that the child support legislation provided ample remedies to the appellant for damages arising from

the frustration of the proper calculation of child support. With respect to the appellant’s claim for additional remedies to enforce payment of child support, the Court observed that the appellant had not pleaded sufficient facts to support her claim that she was precluded from enforcing child support orders against Mr. Michie. Even if the appellant had sufficiently pleaded the claim, she would have had

adequate remedies under creditor protection laws. The Court also explained that the principle of merger precluded the appellant’s conspiracy claim because the alleged unlawful acts were independently actionable claims that were also pleaded. In the present case, since the conspiracy plea added nothing to the appellant’s statutory claims, it disclosed no reasonable claim and was therefore properly struck.

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

7

7

Waters v. Michie, (cont.)

APPELLATE DECISION

AVAILABLE SERVICES DAY IN THE LIFE A video which places an audience into the daily struggles of the plaintiff. SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTARY Journalistically shot and edited, our documentaries address the real human tragedy and cost of your case. ANIMATED AND “REAL LIFE” REENACTMENT Graphics and dramatized video give an additional visual impact to witness testimony. DEPOSITONS Professional picture and audio quality.

Vancouver Legal Media

phone: 604-767-7187 www.vancouverlegalmedia.com

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

8

8

Petrelli v. Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd., 2011 BCCA 367Areas of Law: Abuse of Process; Estoppel; Res judicata; Fresh Evidence

Under Appeal: Justice Joyce

The appellant was Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd. The

respondents were George Petrelli and Rita Petrelli. In 2007, the respondents bought a holiday home at the appellant’s trailer park. Their friends, the Bahrys, bought a unit at the park a few months before the Petrellis did. In 2008, the Bahrys successfully sued for the rescission of the contract of sale of their holiday home based on the claim that the location of their unit in the park violated municipal bylaws, and hence constituted a fundamental breach of the sale agreement. The Petrellis commenced a similar action against the appellant in 2009. The appellant filed a statement of defence, asserting, inter alia, that the location of the Petrellis’ unit in the park was a legal non-conforming use of the land. The respondents amended their

BACKGROUND

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

statement of claim arguing that it was an abuse of process for the appellant to defend the action because a substantially similar dispute was already resolved by the Supreme Court in favour of the plaintiff in Bahry v. Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd., 2009 BCSC 632. The chambers judge agreed with the respondents and allowed the rescission of the impugned contract. On appeal, the appellant argued that the chambers judge erred in considering its defence as an abuse of process. It also argued that contrary to the chambers judge’s finding, the issue of legal non-conforming use was neither raised nor determined in Bahry. The appellant further requested that the Court of Appeal consider the pleadings in the Bahry action which were not before the chambers judge, as they would show that the non-conforming use issue was never considered in Bahry.

Email Us:Michael Thomas

Terry Robertson, QCMandeep Gill

Bernie Buettner

Did you know that Harper Grey llp has a significant plaintiff personal injury practice?! Here’s what we offer:

• Free consultations with clients and/or referring lawyers• An extensive list of trusted medical, economic, scientific

and other experts• A great reputation for trial expertise and client service• Financing to help clients through lengthy cases

We understand your reputation is at stake with any referral. We promise to respect your relationships.

Want to know more? Visit our website: www.hgpersonalinjury.com

Honouring Referrals. Respecting Relationships.

October 2011

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

9

9

Take Five. Whenever you are ready.

Now you can access Take Five, any time, anywhere, from any computer, without

needing an email link.

Click here for more information.

Petrelli v. Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd., (cont.)

APPELLATE DECISION

The appeal was allowed. The Court held that it could

not take judicial notice of the pleadings in Bahry because the contents of court records were neither matters of general knowledge nor could they be readily ascertained. The Court nonetheless proceeded to consider the pleadings as fresh evidence because they were essential to the determination of whether there was an abuse of process. They would also be useful in clarifying the procedural history of the case. The Court ruled that contrary to the chambers judge’s finding on issue estoppel, the matter of legal non-conforming use was not litigated in Bahry. Hence, the appellant did not abuse the process when it raised the defence to the respondents’ claim. The order of the chambers judge was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial.

Records and DocumentationIf you are carrying on a business, you are required to keep adequate records that provide sufficient details and support to determine how much tax you owe. Estimates and incomplete information are not acceptable to CRA. In this regard, I refer you to CRA’s Guide RC4409 Keeping Records, which can be found on CRA’s Website.

A CompanyAnother way to do business is through a company. A company is a separate legal entity that can undertake to do business and own property in its own name. A company has its own requirements to file tax returns, pay taxes, and meet other obligations. A company pays tax at different rates than does an individual proprietor.

There may be circumstances where it is tax-efficient to do business through a company or where liability issues make incorporation a prudent choice.

There are costs associated with incorporation, however. Before making a decision, you should carefully consider the costs of incorporating and carrying on an incorporated business and compare them to the benefits that would be gained by doing so.

Professional advice is recommended to assist you in making this assessment.

CautionThis article is not intended to provide a complete summary of issues and requirements relating to individuals in business; it highlights a few preliminary considerations. The comments provided herein are based on information available at the time of writing and are general in nature. We recommend that individuals consult their own tax advisors before acting on information contained in this article, to ensure that their own specific circumstances and current tax legislation are taken into account. s

Kathryn G. Edwards, CA, is a Partner with Pagnanini Edwards Lam Chartered Accountants.

Kathy@accountantsplus.ca

Estate Litigation

I can help.

• PastPresident,TLABC

• PastChairWills&TrustsSection,CBA

• Over36yearsoflitigationexperience

TrevorToddWills

EstatesEstate Litigation

ReferralsWelcome.

P | 604 264-8470 www.disinherited.comE | rttodd@disinherited.com

Better care for a better life

Home care designed especially for you

• Nursing• Personal Care• Home Support• Companionship

• Funding Investigations• Free Assessments• Nurse Supervised Staff • 24 Hour/7 Day Service

Vancouver office

604.873.25451.866.227.3106 www.bayshore.ca

52 The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia Volume 19 Number 2 Summer 2010

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

10

10

Bagri v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2011 BCCA 368Areas of Law: Workers’ Compensation; Opportunity to be Heard

Under Appeal: Justice Loo

BACKGROUND

The appellant was the Workers’

Compensation Board of British Columbia (“Board”). The respondent was Avtar Singh Bagri. On September 11, 1992, Mr. Bagri sustained injuries to his upper right back and shoulder while working as a lumber grader at a sawmill. He was granted workers’ compensation benefits until March 7, 1993. In 1994, Mr. Bagri was diagnosed as suffering from fibromyalgia. He requested to have the condition included in his compensation claim for the 1992 injury, but his request was denied by the claims adjudicator and appeals to the Review Board and the Board’s Appeal Division were unsuccessful. In August 1996, Mr. Bagri requested that a medical review panel examine whether his fibromyalgia condition was caused by the 1992 work-related injury. Before the panel was constituted, a psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Bagri as suffering from depression

and anxiety which Mr. Bagri also attributed to his 1992 work-related injury. The adjudicator refused to include the psychological condition in the compensation claim after finding no connection between Mr. Bagri’s psychological condition and the 1992 accident. The medical review panel was constituted with two rheumatologists and one family physician. The dispute before the panel was whether Mr. Bagri’s fibromyalgia was causally related to the compensable injury he sustained in 1992. In 1998, the panel issued a certificate stating that Mr. Bagri suffered from a generalized anxiety disorder which was not caused by the 1992 accident. The panel also found that Mr. Bagri did not suffer from fibromyalgia. Based on the panel’s findings, the adjudicator denied Mr. Bagri’s claim for further benefits. As the Review Board denied his appeal, Mr. Bagri elevated the matter to the Appeal Division, but the appeal was later withdrawn. In 2003, Mr. Bagri’s lawyer filed a petition for judicial review, naming the Board as the only respondent and seeking to set aside the medical review panel’s certificate on the ground that it was unlawful for the panel to have made findings about Mr. Bagri’s psychological conditions as this was not within the panel’s area of specialization. The chambers judge allowed the petition and set aside the panel’s certificate. She concluded that the certificate was unreasonable because Mr. Bagri had not expected that his psychological conditions would be considered by the panel and he was not given a fair opportunity be heard on the matter. The chambers judge also set aside the decision of the Review Board upholding the adjudicator’s finding that Mr. Bagri’s anxiety disorder was not caused by the 1992 accident. The Board appealed, arguing that the chambers judge erred in finding that the certificate of the medical review panel and the decision of the Review Board were unreasonable.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

October 2011

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

11

11

APPELLATE DECISION

Bagri v. British Columbia, (cont.)

The appeal was allowed and the petition

for judicial review was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the decision of the Review Board could not be subject to judicial review by the chambers judge as neither the Review Board nor its successor, the Workers’

Compensation Appeal Tribunal, was served with the petition. The Court disagreed with the conclusion of the chambers judge that the certificate of the medical review panel was unreasonable. The Court observed that there was no evidence to support the position that Mr. Bagri was denied the opportunity to be heard as he or his counsel knew or should have reasonably known that the panel would be considering Mr. Bagri’s psychological conditions. The Court also held that Mr. Bagri’s counsel himself knew that the medical review panel was not restricted to the dispute identified in the certificate.

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

12

12

Ladner v. Wolfson, 2011 BCCA 370Areas of Law: Constructive trust; Negligence of Counsel

Under Appeal: Justice Smith

BACKGROUND

The appellants were Harvey Wolfson and Ganapathi Ashcroft and

Company. The respondent was Julie Marjorie Ladner. Ms. Ladner and her now deceased former husband, Hugh Ladner, executed a separation agreement in which he undertook to pay her monthly spousal support and maintain life insurance in an amount sufficient to cover his support obligations. Upon Mr. Ladner’s death, it was discovered that he failed to provide for the stipulated life insurance. His estate was also insolvent. Ms. Ladner successfully sued his estate for damages for breach of the life insurance clause in the separation agreement. After she was awarded $417,621in damages, Ms. Ladner attempted to pursue a claim in trust for the insurance proceeds payable to the estate, but was unsuccessful at trial and

on appeal. Subsequently, Ms. Ladner sued her solicitor, asserting that he was negligent in failing to pursue a trust claim before or concurrently with the damage claim. The trial judge found that the solicitor was negligent in failing to advance Ms. Ladner’s trust claim in a timely fashion. On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the failure to advance the trust claim caused a loss to Ms. Ladner, and that such failure was a breach of the standard of care owed by the appellants. The appellants argued in the alternative that the trial judge erred in calculating the damages. Ms. Ladner filed a cross-appeal with respect to the computation of damages.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

October 2011

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

13

13

Ladner v. Wolfson, (cont.)

Speed

ScenePHOTOGRAPHS & DIAGRAMS

Unbiased pictorial and diagrammatic views for MVA and personal injury scenes

Photography day or night, rain or shine | Scale diagrams

Courtroom-ready packages | Witness experience | Video

Serving British Columbia Since 1986

Phone/Fax: Toll-Free from Vancouver604.856.3888

Email:info@speedscene.ca

Website:www.speedscene.ca

Address:35155 High Drive,Abbotsford, BCV2S 2X7

APPELLATE DECISION

The appeal was allowed and the action together

with the cross-appeal was dismissed. The Court ruled that even if the constructive trust claim was pursued, it would not have succeeded. Thus, any negligence attributable to the solicitor would not have resulted in any loss to Ms. Ladner. The

Court held that contrary to the findings of the trial judge, a good conscience constructive trust could not have arisen because the relationship between the spouses after their separation did not involve continuing fiduciary and equitable obligations. Also, there was no proprietary connection between the insurance proceeds payable to the estate and the insurance policy contemplated in the separation agreement. As such, the trust claim could not be imposed on the insurance proceeds payable to the estate.

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

14

14

Web-based Search & Registration

Open

Close the deal.

Visit

www.dyedurhambc.com or connect through BC Online

No faxes. No Couriers. No Paper.

No Footprint.

Information & Legal Support ServicesCORPORATIONLand TitleLitigationCorporatePPSADue DiligenceProcess ServingContinuing Legal Education

The appellants were The Cash Store Inc. (“Cash

Store”) and Rentcash Inc. The respondents were Andrew Bodnar and Jose Bartolome. The appellants were sued in a class action for charging and collecting illegal fees relating to payday loans made to class members. In May 2009, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement which was approved by the Supreme Court. Cash Store was appointed Settlement Administrator, while Epiq Systems Inc. (“Epiq”) was the Claims Process Reviewer. The Approval Order affirmed the continuing role of the court in providing direction in any matter arising under the Agreement. The class counsel

later sought an order removing Cash Store as the Settlement Administrator based on complaints from class members that Cash Store was unable to carry out its administrative duties with competence and transparency. The chambers judge found sufficient evidence to support the complaints, noting that Cash Store had miscalculated class members’ claims, and that it had not been straightforward in its administration of the claims process. She also found that the Class Proceedings Act and the terms of the Settlement Agreement gave her inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to remove and replace Cash Store as Settlement Administrator. In her order, however, the chambers judge did not expressly remove Cash Store as Settlement Administrator and appoint Epiq in its place, but it was implicit in the order that Epiq had assumed the role. On appeal, the appellants argued that by issuing the order, the chambers judge exceeded her supervisory jurisdiction over the administration of the settlement, and that the order was contrary to the intention of the parties to the Agreement and the law on variation of consent orders.

Bodnar v. The Cash Store Inc., 2011 BCCA 384Areas of Law: Class Actions; Settlement Agreements; Variation of Consent Orders

Under Appeal: Justice Griffin

BACKGROUND

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

October 2011

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

15

15

The appeal was dismissed. The Court

of Appeal explained that while the Settlement Agreement was merged in the Approval Order, such merger did not limit the supervisory jurisdiction of the chambers judge under the Class Proceedings Act and the terms of the Agreement. Contrary to the appellants’ claim that the impugned order varied the terms of the

Agreement, the Court found that the chambers judge merely exercised her authority to change the administrative aspects of the settlement. The order did not result in any substantive amendments to the terms of the Agreement, as in fact the duties of the Administrator were administrative in nature and the substance of the settlement would be the same regardless of who was performing those duties. The Court also noted that the chambers judge could not be said to have varied the terms of the Agreement when she ordered Cash Store’s removal and replacement as she merely imposed appropriate terms on Cash Store to enforce its obligation to appoint a new Settlement Administrator in light of its failure in that role. The Court Appeal varied the order of the chambers judge by including a term expressly removing Cash Store as Settlement Administrator and appointing Epiq in its place.

Deponent’s office not near yours?

Witnessing affidavits at the offices of doctors, engineers, or any busy professional.

Send our mobile lawyers to them.

One flat rate includes attendance at deponent’s office to witness signature, mileage, parking, and courier delivery to your office of completed documents.

Tel: 604-879-4280 Email: info@onpointlaw.com Fax: 604-648-8930 Website: www.onpointlaw.com

APPELLATE DECISION

Bodnar v. The Cash Store Inc., (cont.)

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five

604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

16

16

OnPoint is a law firm of on-call

research lawyers, all of whom have completed clerkships and litigated with downtown law firms.

Who is OnPoint?

For over 12 years, our firm has completed research and writing projects for lawyers in the private and public sectors, from case summaries to complex memoranda and facta.

Many of our clients consider using our services as equivalent to relying upon work completed by in-house associates, and add a measure of profit accordingly when billing their own clients.

“OnPoint has always performed in a timely, effective and professional manner and has done excellent work at a reasonable price. We do not hesitate to use their services.”

Larry Kahn, QC and Marvin Lithwick, Kahn Zack Ehrlich

“OnPoint’s lawyers are knowledgeable, efficient, effective and reliable. Their work is always proficient and timely. It is a pleasure to work with them. They are an invaluable resource to our firm.”

Angiola De Stefanis, Alliance Lex Law Corp.

“All of us at Taylor Veinotte Sullivan use OnPoint’s researchers on our cases. OnPoint’s expertise in a wide range of complicated commercial litigation is invaluable to a firm of our size and is also a real costs savings to our clients” Carey Veinotte, Taylor Veinotte Sullivan

Sarah Picciotto, B.A., LL.B. Founder of OnPoint