MENU

Trevor Bant

Profile

Trevor is a generalist litigator with a broad range of interests, but most of his practice deals in some way with public law. He acts most often as junior counsel for governments, public officials and statutory bodies, and for companies and individuals in heavily regulated industries.

Trevor also has a busy and diverse appellate practice in which he relies on his experience clerking at the Supreme Court of Canada and for the Chief Justice of British Columbia at our Court of Appeal.

Trevor shares the firm’s commitment to pro bono work and often accepts referrals from non-profit organizations, particularly on housing and immigration matters.

Outside law, Trevor enjoys endurance sports, yoga, backcountry camping and vegetarian cooking.

Notable Cases

H(M) v Legal Services Society, 2018 BCSC 195 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Represented the Legal Services Society’s in a successful defence of a funding decision made in respect of the petitioner’s application for legal aid representation.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v Tan, 2017 BCSC 2233: Obtained an injunction for the petitioner Health College, preventing the respondent and her company from providing mole-removal services while not licensed as a medical professional.

Democracy Watch v British Columbia (Conflict of Interest Commissioner), 2017 BCCA 366 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Acted for the respondent Conflict of Interest Commissioner in proceedings seeking to challenge his opinion concerning certain activities of the then-Premier. The proceedings were dismissed with no impact on the Commissioner’s opinion.

Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 BCSC 1575 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Represented the City of Richmond in an important application in a First Nations land claim, concerning the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify private landowners of their claim.

Law Society of British Columbia v Gurney, 2017 LSBC 32 (with Ken McEwan, Q.C., former counsel at the firm): successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in the disciplinary phase of professional misconduct proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions. The decision confirms that Law Society Hearing Panels have the power to order disgorgement of fees received by a lawyer as a result of his or her professional misconduct. (The earlier decision on misconduct is available at Law Society of British Columbia v Gurney, 2017 LSBC 15.)

In the matter of eight appeals under section 147 of the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157 (with Mark Oulton): successfully defended an application seeking summary dismissal of a series of stumpage appeals before the Forest Appeals Commission.

Lang v. Lapp, 2017 BCSC 670: an application for a declaration that a foreign default judgment would not be discharged in bankruptcy.

Northwest Organics, Limited Partnership v. Roest, 2017 BCSC 673 (with John Hunter, Q.C.): an appeal from a master’s order dealing with parliamentary privilege, case-by-case privilege and the scope of document production orders against non-parties.

Soprema Inc. v. Wolrige Mahon LLP, 2016 BCCA 471 (with Ken McEwan, Q.C.): an appeal concerning the test for implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege in court pleadings.

News

April 2018

Five Hunter Litigation Chambers lawyers — Mike Stephens, Brent Olthuis, Claire Hunter, Trevor Bant and Julia Roos — were recognized in the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s 2017 Annual Report for their contributions to pro bono services on Court of Appeal cases in 2017.

February 2018

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the Legal Services Society in a successful defence of a funding decision. A copy of the decision can be found here.

October 2017

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the British Columbia Conflict of Interest Commissioner in an appeal challenging an opinion the Commissioner rendered concerning the certain activities of the former Premier. The appeal was dismissed for reasons that can be found here.

On October 11, Rebecca Robb and Trevor Bant were recognized at the Access Pro Bono Society’s Annual General Meeting as among the Top 10 volunteers in the roster program for 2016. Rebecca was also in the top 10 civil chambers program volunteers. Congratulations to Rebecca and Trevor!

September 2017

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the City of Richmond in an important application in a First Nations land claim, concerning the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify private landowners of their claim. A copy of the judgment can be found here.

Trevor Bant (with Ken McEwan, Q.C., former counsel at the firm) successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in the disciplinary phase of professional misconduct proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions. The decision, available here, confirms that Law Society Hearing Panels have the power to order disgorgement of fees received by a lawyer as a result of his or her professional misconduct. (The earlier decision on misconduct is available here.)

June 2017

Trevor Bant (with Mark Oulton) successfully defended an application seeking summary dismissal of a series of stumpage appeals before the Forest Appeals Commission. The reasons of the Commission are available here.

Trevor Bant (with Ken McEwan, Q.C.) successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in professional disciplinary proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions in 4 transactions. The decision confirmed important principles of lawyers’ self-regulation including when asked to facilitate a transaction that appears to be suspicious, a lawyer has a duty to make inquiries sufficient to establish, on an objective basis, that the transaction is legitimate, or should decline the engagement. The decision is available here.)

April 2017

Trevor Bant (with John Hunter, Q.C., former counsel at the firm) acted for a Member of the Legislative Assembly in a largely successful appeal dealing with parliamentary privilege, case-by-case privilege and the scope of document production orders against non-parties. The reasons for judgment are available here.