Michael Yawney QC took over a claim being handled by a lawyer in Kelowna at the request of relatives of a woman injured while travelling in Washington State. The client suffered soft tissue and psychological injury in the accident. Liability and the quantum of damages were hotly contested by the defendants. Mr Yawney was able to resolve the claim months prior to trial for over $300,000.00.

 

A man died, leaving all of his assets including a large piece of valuable land to his common-law spouse.  The assets had been jointly held with the spouse, so she received them all by right of survivorship; and moreover the Deceased’s will left all his estate to the spouse as well.  Andrew challenged both the creation of the joint ownerships and the Deceased’s will, citing lack of mental capacity and undue influence, in that the spouse had assumed a position of power and was controlling the Deceased’s actions when he gave her joint ownership and when he executed his will.  We succeeded in gaining back 50% of the Deceased’s property from the spouse.

A young man from the west side of Okanagan Lake suffered shoulder and neck injuries as he was sitting in a restaurant eating a meal. A vehicle came crashing through the window and hit him. Through extensive rehabilitation, including physiotherapy and massage, he was able to substantially recover from his injuries and get back to work. He retained Mr. Yawney to pursue a claim on his behalf and it was resolved prior to trial for $150,000.00 plus costs and disbursements.

MEDEMA v McCREIGHT

Trial conducted by Daniel Poulin in April of 2016.

Our client, Mr. Medema, sued his neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. McCreight (the Defendants) for damage to his property which occurred as a result of water flowing from the Defendants’ property during a heavy rain on June 3, 2014.

The Defendants’ property was uphill from our client’s property, and was undeveloped grassland before the Defendants began to develop it and construct their home, driveways, and garage on it in 2011. Prior to 2011, there was not a history of significant runoff coming from the Defendants’ property when it rained. After the Defendants’ property began to be developed, there were several occasions on which the Defendants’ neighbours, including our client, complained about water running onto the road and toward the neighbours’ properties. The Defendants took some steps to have drainage facilities installed to reduce the problem.

On June 3, 2014, there was a heavy rainfall that caused some buildings to be flooded in parts of the North Okanagan. The water runoff from the Defendants’ property overwhelmed the drainage facilities that had been installed and ran across the road to our client’s property, causing significant flooding to his yard and basement. Our client’s costs for repairing his property was over $25,000.00.

At trial, our client relied on an expert report by a geotechnical engineer which found that the Defendants’ development of their property significantly reduced the permeability of the ground to rainwater, and therefore significantly increased the amount of water that was running off their property when it rained. The Honourable Judge McKimm found that the Defendants were liable for that water runoff and the damage it caused. The judge first found them liable under the law of Nuisance, which means that the Defendants’ use of their property caused an unreasonable interference with our client’s property. The judge found that the Defendants were also liable under the law of Negligence, because they should have been aware that the improvements to their property could cause flooding to their neighbours, and they did not take reasonable steps to alleviate those foreseeable risks.  The judge awarded our client $25,000.00 plus costs, which is the most a Provincial Court Judge can award.

A young man from Vernon suffered a vascular injury to the main artery in his leg when a vehicle backed into him and pinned him against another. He retained Michael Yawney QC to pursue a claim for his injuries. The claim required expert medical evidence regarding the impact of the vascular injury on the client’s physical functioning and with respect to his career plan to train for a very physical job. The claim was settled prior to trial for over $200,000.00.