Associate

Milaad Hashmi

Milaad maintains a general commercial litigation practice. He represents individuals and businesses involved in a wide array of commercial disputes, including shareholder disputes, oppression remedy claims, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation claims.

Milaad has particular experience helping clients resolve real estate and construction related disputes and has represented clients at all levels of court in British Columbia, as well as before administrative tribunals and in private arbitrations.

Outside the office, Milaad enjoys reading, traveling and exploring the North Shore mountains.

 

Practice Areas

• Litigation & ADR

Education

• Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia
• Simon Fraser University, BA, Politics and Economics

Bar Admissions

• British Columbia, 2021

Notable Cases

•  
• KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd. v. XL Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 BCSC 1652

  Our client is the developer of a large luxury mixed-use building located in Vancouver.   For the past number of years it has been a defendant in a complex multi-party construction dispute, part of which has been proceeding as a class action.  The client had a wrap-up liability insurance policy in place for the development that required the insurer to defend any actions alleging damage to property.  The insurer denied coverage relying on an exclusion referred to as the “your work” exclusion.  Shane and Devin successfully argued that the insurer had not met its burden to demonstrate to the court that this exclusion clearly applied to oust coverage.  Justice Millman found that the duty to defend had been triggered and ordered the insurer to reimburse our client for all costs incurred to date to defend those actions and to prospectively cover all defence costs going forward as they are incurred.

  Please see the reasons for judgment in KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd. v. XL Insurance Company Ltd.,  2022 BCSC 1652

  Keep Reading
•  
• Yegre EB Ltd. v. Seguin, 2024 BCCA 365,

  In Yegre EB Ltd. v. Seguin, 2024 BCCA 365, Shane Coblin and Milaad Hashmi were successful in having the Court of Appeal overturn a Chambers Judge’s finding that a forum selection clause in a property purchase agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts of the province of Alberta.  This case provides guidance on the test applicable when interpreting a forum selection clause, and it clarifies that the failure to properly interpret or apply case law constitutes an extricable error of law in the contractual interpretation process.

  The case involved a 2015 purchase agreement in which the appellant purchased five industrial properties in British Columbia and Ontario from the respondents. In 2022, the appellant commenced proceedings in the BC Supreme Court alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligence in connection with the purchase of the properties. The respondents filed a jurisdictional response and then brough an application to stay the claim on the basis of the forum selection clause.

  Keep Reading
•  
• 601 Main Partnership v. Centura Building Systems (2013) Ltd., 2024 BCCA 76,

  Shane Coblin and Milaad Hashmi successfully argued before the Court of Appeal that the act of filing a lien that the lien claimant knew or ought to have know was inflated, constitutes an abuse of process entitling an owner to damages.

  In 601 Main Partnership v. Centura Building Systems (2013) Ltd., 2024 BCCA 76, the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed the role of the tort of abuse of process in combatting inflated construction liens. The common law has restricted the application of the tort of abuse of process to circumstances where the abusive act complained of is separate from the litigation process itself.  The logic being, that abusive litigation conduct is dealt with by an award of costs within the proceeding and ought not to give rise to a separate cause of action—so as to avoid one failed action begetting another action, which may beget another action, and on and on.

   

  Keep Reading
•  
• Li v Hu, 2024 BCSC 778,

  Shane Coblin and Milaad Hashmi successfully defend claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment made against our clients in a dispute over a failed assignment of a pre-sale condominium agreement in Vancouver. They also obtained an order that the Plaintiff had forfeited to our client the $340,188 she had paid towards the assignment and an order that the Plaintiff pay special costs.

  The dispute originated from a 2017 pre-sale condominium interest acquired by the Defendant, who later offered to assign that interest to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff made payments totaling approximately $340,188, representing the first two deposits required under the pre-sale agreement. The agreement collapsed when the Plaintiff decided not to proceed with the acquisition and demanded a refund. Our client refused and treated the Plaintiff’s words and conduct as a repudiation of the agreement entitling her to keep the amounts already paid.

  Keep Reading

Contact Milaad: