Caitlin Ehman is developing a general litigation practice with a focus on public law and civil disputes.
Caitlin received her JD from the University of Victoria in 2017. During law school, she participated in the Law Centre clinical program, competed in the Wilson Moot, and worked at the Ministry of Justice and this firm. Following graduation, she clerked for the Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan of the Federal Court before returning to the firm for her articles.
Prior to law school, Caitlin taught in public and private schools in Vancouver.
Hunter Litigation Chambers lawyers Claire Hunter, Q.C. and Caitlin Ehman, together with Adrienne Smith of Adrienne Smith Law successfully represented a youth referred to as R.A.S.J. in opposing a last-minute injunction brought by R.A.S.J.’s mother to prevent him from obtaining the gender affirming surgery scheduled to be performed the morning after the application was heard. Madam Justice Brown dismissed the application for failure to meet any of the three necessary branches of the RJR-McDonald test in reasons available here.
Randy Kaardal, Q.C., Paul Heisler, and Caitlin Ehman successfully represented the Executive Director of the Securities Commission in a stated case referred to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of British Columbia, in which Madam Justice Jackson upheld the constitutionality of the Security Commission’s power to freeze assets. A copy of that decision is here.
Brent Olthuis and Caitlin Ehman obtained summary judgment, dismissing the entirety of the plaintiffs’ claims against their client. The court agreed with their submissions that the claim was bound to fail, and that “estoppel by representation” was a rule of evidence, not a basis to sue. A copy of the court’s reasons can be found here.
Claire Hunter QC and Caitlin Ehman were successful in obtaining a discretionary publication ban over the identity of a defendant in a civil action.
Ryan Dalziel, Caitlin Ehman, and Daniel Corrin successfully represented a plaintiff on appeal by ICBC from a finding of vicarious liability for a hit-and-run by an unidentified driver of an identified car. The appeal tested the limits of the inferences that could be drawn by the trial judge from purely circumstantial evidence about the presence of the car at a nightclub, and whether the car owner granted any one of a number of persons at the club permission to drive the vehicle. A copy of the decision can be found here.
Trevor Bant and Caitlin Ehman successfully resisted an appeal from a child support order, acting for the recipient of child support. The reasons for judgment, which are available here, provide guidance a variety of procedural and substantive issues relating to child support orders.