|Location:||Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada|
|Legal Assistant:||Lucy Shi|
Russell’s litigation practice is focused on complex commercial disputes, estate claims and catastrophic personal injuries. Russell regularly appears before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and various regulatory boards and tribunals. Russell has also written articles on limitations periods, administrative practice and maritime law matters.
Representative Published Cases
C.G.I. Credit Guard Inc. v. Kal Tire, 2022 BCSC 1532: In this case Russell represented the plaintiff collection agency in an action against a former client for payment of its close out fees, after the client requested CGI to close and return all collection files. The defendant alleged the close-out fee which represented CGI’s lost commission fees should not be payable in light of derogatory comments made by CGI, which it claimed caused a repudiation of the contract. In the alternative the defendant argued the close-out fees amounted to an unenforceable penalty clause. The court dismissed the defendant’s arguments and awarded the plaintiff the full payment of its close-out fees.
1063664 BC Ltd v. Perehudoff: 2021 BCSC 2136: In this case Russell represented the petitioning numbered company which sought the return of it corporate minute book from a former director who was refusing to release it. After an initial order for the minute book was ignored, Russell brought contempt of court proceedings against the Respondent and obtained a contempt order. The respondent appealed but the court upheld the finding of contempt.
Gill v. Gill, 2021 BCSC 143: In this proceeding Russell represented several defendants. The Plaintiff alleges they had loaned money to the defendants pursuant to an oral loan agreement, and alternatively said the defendants had used their money to make improvements to the defendant’s home. The Plaintiff filed a Certificate of Pending Litigation on the defendants’ home and refused to remove it. Russell brought an application on behalf of these defendants to have the CPL cancelled and the Plaintiff’s whole case dismissed against them. The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s case could proceed but ordered the immediate removal of the CPL.
Martyn v. Walton, 2018 BCSC 2028: This was an estate dispute wherein the plaintiff alleged the defendant had promised to provide a property to him upon her death. Russell represented the defendant who denied this claim, and brought a summary trial application to dismiss the case. The court held that there was no merit to the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the action with costs to the defendant.
McMillan v. AltaStream Power Systems Inc., 2018 BCSC 1298: In this proceeding Russell represented the defendant employer in a series of actions commenced by the plaintiff, its former sales associate following that employee’s termination. The written contract required a 60 day notice of termination period and the plaintiff was claiming significant sums for commissions that could potentially have been earned during that period. The employer counter sued for money owed to it regarding a company vehicle. The court ruled in the employer’s favour by dismissing over 90% of the plaintiff’s claimed commissions and awarding the company all of the amounts it claimed.
Triple Eagle Logistic Canada Inc. v. LCJ Great Trading Ltd, et al, 2017 BCSC 1147: In this action Russell prosecuted the plaintiff’s claims to payment of its unpaid invoices and successfully defended the defendants’ counterclaims of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. The parties previously reached a settlement agreement on the unpaid invoices, which the defendants breached. Further to a provision in the settlement agreement, the defendant was held liable to reimburse the plaintiff for 100% of its litigation expenses.
Anadolu Efes v. Sebucom International Corporation, 2016 BCSC 1583: In this action Russell successfully defended against the plaintiff application for judgment on invoices it alleged contained enforceable Bills of Exchange or trade acceptances. The defendant alleged that the products sent by the plaintiff had contained packaging defects, which had caused the defendant to incur significant expenses.
IDSS Enterprises Ltd. v. Dynasty P.G. & Grandsons Holding Inc., 2012 BCSC 1246: Acted as junior counsel at trial advancing a claim for unpaid monies owing under a share purchase agreement. The defendant had filed a counterclaim of over $2 million. The plaintiff and the defendant were companies in partnership. The defendant agreed to buy out the plaintiff’s interest. They signed a handwritten agreement that referred to an equal division of accounts receivable and accounts payable up to the date of the agreement. The question was what was meant by the word “profits” in the share purchase agreement. It was appropriate to look to the handwritten agreement for evidence of the parties’ intention. The required payment was one half of the amount by which accounts receivable exceeded accounts payable on the date of the agreement. The plaintiff was awarded damages of $316,900.
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, Faculty of Law, Victoria, British Columbia
- Professor Jim Ellis Memorial Prize in Advanced Taxation: International Tax
- Served on the board for student legal journal: Appeal Law Journal
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, Business School, Victoria, British Columbia
Bachelor of Commerce
- Graduated on Dean’s List
- Focus on International Finance; exchange semester in Jonkoping, Sweden
Articles & Publications
- Practical Federalism: A cynical strategy, 41 BC Shipping News, June 2018
- Cruising in Canada’s Arctic: The Mis-adventure of the Clipper Adventurer, 42 BC Shipping News, April 2017
- Criminal Negligence causing death: Collision Regulations, 46 BC Shipping News, April 2016
- Abandon Ship!, 50 BC Shipping News, March 2015
- The Doctrine of Deliberative Secrecy: Hurdles to the Examination of Tribunal Members, CBA National Administrative Law Newsletter, March 2014
- Limitation Periods in Debt Instruments, Paper and Presentation, 2013 Residential Real Estate Conference, Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, December 2013
- Limitation Periods on Demand Promissory Notes: The Significance of Making the Note Payable a Fixed Period After Demand, 370 The Advocate, Vol. 70 Part 3 May 2012
Professional and Other Affiliations
- Law Society of British Columbia, Member
- Canadian Bar Association, Member
- Plimsoll Club, Board of Directors
- Canadian Bar Association (B.C. Branch), Maritime Law Section, Member
- Canadian Maritime Law Association, Member
Russell’s personal interests include skiing, softball, hockey, coaching Little League and getting away to his family cabin in the Gulf Islands.