NOS DISPARUS

By R.C. Tino Bella

John Craig Paterson

A lawyer and activist, Craig Paterson challenged the unfair decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia and advocated for fairness and justice. His mentoring stimulated many lawyers to join him in an underserved area of law. He died on January 26, 2023 at the age of 76.

In 1980, injured workers applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board in about the same numbers as motorists applied for ICBC benefits. However, few could effectively challenge the Board’s decisions without access to the injured worker’s file containing medical reports and opinions upon which the Board denied a worker benefits. Craig’s advocacy in Napoli v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) (1981), 29 B.C.L.R. 371 (C.A.), a judicial review decision, forced the Board to finally grant injured workers access to these files rather than its limited summaries.

Craig’s work with the late James (Jim) Sayre and Allen MacLean from the Community Legal Assistance Society (“CLAS”) on the Napoli case caused the Board to recognize its compensation procedures had to comply with “a high standard of justice”.

The importance of disclosure was well illustrated in Vincenzo Napoli’s case for permanent disability. The Board provided summaries of only 4 pages and later 16 pages, which disclosed 30 medical and other opinions on the claim file. Although the summaries said that Mr. Napoli’s ongoing back disabilities occurred after he fell down a railway embankment, the summaries did not say that it was a 70-foot embankment. Nemetz C.J.B.C. noted that the summaries disclosed allegations and observations that would undoubtedly be challenged by counsel and held that the provision of summaries was not sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice.

About eight years previously, the wonderful Tom Berger, Q.C., had tried unsuccessfully to get courts to recognize that injured workers should have access to their files on appeal.

Craig was always pushing for safer and more effective health and safety regulations. In his February 28, 2023 obituary in The Globe and Mail, Rod Mickleburgh described him as “a warrior in workers’ health and safety”.

After growing up in Welland, Ontario, Craig graduated in law from the University of Western Ontario. He obtained a master’s degree in law from Harvard so quickly that he was teaching law at the University of Windsor in his early twenties.

When Craig came to Vancouver in the early 1970s to work at the BC Workers’ Compensation Board under its new chairman Terry Ison for the first NDP government, Craig played a major role in developing groundbreaking occupational health and safety regulations, which put more onus on employers for workplace safety and safer working conditions.

After chairman Ison was fired by the new government, Craig showed his principles by resigning from the Board to protest its new direction and his colleague Connie Sun/Munro left soon afterwards.

Craig set up his practice with Connie when few lawyers in private practice specialized in workers’ compensation cases and occupational health and safety.

In addition to many groundbreaking legal challenges, Craig hired and mentored many lawyers, helping them to think and write more effectively so they could and did contribute to fighting for individual workers’ rights as well as changes to law and policy. Craig’s legacy includes those he mentored and now practise in workers’ compensation, or work as in-house advocates within unions, and even became members of the appeal tribunals hearing workers’ compensation cases.

I attended the founding meeting of the Workers’ Compensation Advocacy Group (“WCAG”) in 1981 with Craig to meet with Allen MacLean at CLAS’s office.The resultant WCAG meetings and online discussions shared positive decisions, advocacy tips and policy papers, which are part of Craig’s legacy and continue under the aegis of PovNet.

As his articling student in 1980, I observed Craig to be a wonderful single parent to his pre-teen daughter, Tamara, on top of his busy practice. I was impressed by how he took care to cook healthy meals for her and even ironed her clothes. Tamara and her son Jack were always special to Craig.

Craig shared his love of attending Canucks hockey games and offered tickets to games and music concerts. His immaculate home and garden showed off both lovely and quirky art.

Let me provide an example of Craig’s quick sense of fun and energy and charisma.

A law school friend recalls going to the beach with Craig on Canada Day. Was it Wreck Beach or the far end of Locarno Beach? In any event, Craig nude, stood up and started singing “O Canada”, and the surrounding beachgoers joined in.

I treasure the chubby ceramic white and black garden pig I received from Craig just before the COVID-19 pandemic. It is one of eight to ten he bought and gifted to friends.

He always pushed for social justice; his numerous friends can share stories about Craig’s generosity to friends and family in need.

Craig was troubled by back pain and post-surgical and emotional problems in his last years, which saddened us all. However, his many friends honour his legacy. Craig used his undisputed intelligence, persistence, compassion and humour to help others and to make his local world more fun and more beautiful.

Craig leaves his brothers Scott, Robert and Cameron; his sister Janet Ohlman; his daughter Tamara; and his grandson Jack.

Craig left this earth a better place, and it was an honour to be his friend.

Judith C. Lee

John William Seddon

John was born in Vancouver, but very shortly after his birth, the family moved to Shanghai, where John’s father worked as a lawyer. John started school in Shanghai, but at age ten he was sent to England to attend prep school. Soon after, the war broke out and John was sent to Vancouver, where he attended St. George’s School. During the war, John and his mother lived in a converted apartment in the Gabriola Mansion on Davie Street, which subsequently became the site of Hy’s Steakhouse and other restaurant ventures.

During the war, John’s father was interned by the Japanese on December 8, 1941 and not released until 1946. He returned to Shanghai and to the practice of law until 1949, when he was diagnosed with cancer. He moved to England to seek treatment, but died there later that year.

John attended UBC and graduated from law school in 1951. He began his legal career in the legal department of BC Electric (now BC Hydro). While at BC Electric, he was deeply involved in the decommissioning of interurban rail lines. Subsequently, he entered private practice with the firm Buell Ellis and soon became a partner. He practised there until 1985, when Buell Ellis merged with Sutton Braidwood and Cumming Richards to form Richards Buell Sutton. He remained a partner there until his retirement in 1996. John became known as one of the leading mortgage lawyers in British Columbia. He testified as an expert witness in the B.C. Supreme Court on an issue involving mortgage law and practice. He served as counsel to the Mortgage Investment Association of BC for more than 30 years.

John drove to work every day from the North Shore in his red Alfa Romeo sports car with the top down regardless of weather. He was able to simultaneously drive a manual-shift car, drink a coffee, smoke a cigarette and gesture to less-skilled drivers. Truly a skilled multi-tasker.

John was a valued mentor to many young lawyers. Whenever someone would appear at his door looking for help with a legal issue, he would invariably say, “Come on in, the water’s warm.” In the days when you could smoke in the office, he kept his huge, eight-inch wide, three-inch deep ashtray filled to the brim. He dispensed his wisdom through a smoky haze. It was sometimes difficult to see him through the haze and over top of the pile of files on his desk, which must also have served as his filing cabinet. In spite of what appeared to be a huge mess, John was very well organized. He could retrieve any file in a matter of seconds.

Another fixture in John’s office was his father’s barrister’s wig, which John proudly kept mounted on the oak bookshelf behind his desk.

In retirement, John devoted more time to gardening, and he took up building birdhouses.

John is survived by his loving wife of more than 70 years Elizabeth; children Rory (Patti), Colin (Charlene), Peter (Shelley) and Lea Hofseth (Lance); and grandchildren Kristi and Turner Seddon and John and Robert Hofseth.

William M. Holburn, K.C.

On November 17, 2022, the legal profession lost a giant. William M. Holburn, K.C., passed away peacefully with family by his side after a lengthy illness. He is survived by his wife Janet, his children Bill Jr., Andrea and Scott, and seven grandchildren. Bill was one of the founding partners of Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang. Bill’s nationwide reputation as a practice leader and tenacious advocate is nothing short of legendary.

Bill was born in 1941 in Winnipeg and grew up in the neighborhood of St. Vital as an only child. His fierce independence was developed at an early age when, in 1955, he lost his father. For a period in his youth, he and his mother moved to the West Coast and settled in East Vancouver. Bill remembered the exact address on 1st Avenue, between Commercial Drive and Victoria Drive, and was always proud to say he was both a “Winnipegger” and an “East Ender”.

Bill eventually returned to Manitoba and in 1963 entered the four-year program at the University of Manitoba law school. At the time, students attended classes in the morning and worked as articled students for the remainder of the day with a local law firm. Bill also worked part-time as a reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press. After graduation in 1967, Bill secured a position with the firm of Fillmore Riley. While practising with Fillmore Riley, Bill met Earnie Beaudin when both were junioring a trial in Brandon on opposite sides. During the evenings, while playing pool and enjoying a beer or two, they learned of their mutual interest in eventually moving to Vancouver to practise law. Earnie moved in 1969 to join the firm of Fulton Cumming Bird Richards and Bill joined the same firm a year later.

During this trial, Earnie caught his first glimpse of Bill’s craftiness and ingenuity as counsel. The case involved the collapse of a building into an excavation being dug immediately adjacent to the building. The result seemed clear. If you dig a hole next to a building and the building falls into the hole, you’re liable. Bill was acting for the defendant. The defence was novel. He argued that the damaged building was old and decrepit and was going to collapse in any event with or without the excavation and the excavator operator did nothing wrong. His key witness, the machine operator, had gone missing soon and it wasn’t until just before the trial that Bill was able to locate him in remote Manitoba. He was brought to trial to testify.

There was only one problem. In the wilds of Manitoba where this fellow was from, there was no running water other than a local stream and it was apparent when he arrived that he hadn’t bathed in weeks. While Bill and the senior lawyer, Win Norton, were dressing in their court gowns in the Barristers’ Room, Win, having already laid eyes on the disheveled witness, looked at Bill and said scoldingly, “Couldn’t you have cleaned him up a bit?” Bill smiled and with a twinkle in his eye said, “Watch me.” The machine operator was called to the witness stand. Win began his examination-in-chief with the usual preliminary questions and then, looking at the witness more closely, he blurted out, “That’s my jacket! Bill, what the hell have you done? That’s my jacket!” According to Earnie, the witness looked dapper in his new threads and performed well on the stand. Following his evidence, even the judge complimented the witness on his fine attire.

Bill did not stay at the Fulton Cumming firm for long. In November 1971, he and Earnie formed their own firm along with Jim McLachlan, a senior insurance lawyer who had joined them from Winnipeg. The new firm was McLachlan Holburn Beaudin, and in 1972 they became tenants on the 16th floor of the brand new TD Tower at West Georgia and Howe. Two floors above them was Robson Alexander & Guest. In 1973, one of Robson Alexander’s clients had a dispute with its insurer over a fidelity bond. Bill was acting for the insurer and was putting up a tough defence. A young lawyer at the Robson Alexander firm, Stuart Lang, decided to go down to the 16th floor to meet with Bill to see if he could make any headway on the case. Stuart didn’t know that Jim McLachlan had just passed away. He found Bill and Earnie Beaudin disconsolate at their boardroom table, having just returned from Jim’s funeral. Several hours and a few drinks later, they discussed merging their firms. On May 1, 1973, the firm of Alexander, Guest, Wolfe, Holburn & Beaudin was formed. About ten years later, the firm’s name was changed to Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang.

Bill provided strong leadership as the firm grew, largely on the strength of the many clients he attracted. He quickly developed a reputation in the Canadian, American and U.K. insurance markets as one of the top lawyers in Canada and a go-to lawyer for “bet the company” litigation. He was retained in the late 1980s to act for underwriters in what was then one of the largest property damage cases ever litigated in Canada, with about $1 billion at stake. It involved the flood of a potash mine in Saskatchewan and was set for trial for 18 months. There were over 300 days of discovery and hundreds of thousands of documents (back in the days when there were no document management systems). The plaintiff, International Minerals Corporation, was represented by a large national firm, so Bill was very proud to comment on how the defendants bypassed all the available firms in Toronto to retain his firm. And when Bill said this, he always referred to the firm, not himself.

Bill was a skilled and fearless advocate who appeared in courts across the country, including several appearances at the Supreme Court of Canada. He handled numerous high-profile cases including Campbell v. Flexwatt, one of the first class action suits certified in British Columbia; the insurance coverage arbitration arising from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre; the Save-On-Foods roof collapse; Bazley v. Curry, the seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision on vicarious liability; and numerous coverage cases that helped shape the law of insurance in Canada. For a period, he also “dabbled” in NHL salary arbitration work, acting for the Vancouver Canucks in the Petr Nedv˘ed and Vladimir Krutov arbitrations. During that time, he spent countless hours with the Canucks’ general manager, Pat Quinn, and his assistant general manager, a young Brian Burke. The stories were endless.

Whether in the courtroom or at the partnership table, Bill had a commanding presence. Nothing intimidated him. He knew how to take it, and he knew how to give it back, even to the judiciary. During one of his many appearances at the Court of Appeal, he was well into his submissions when he was interrupted by Mr. Justice Braidwood, who said, “Mr. Holburn, you’ve made that point several times—there’s no need to repeat it.” Bill responded, “My Lord, it’s a really good point, so you’re going to hear it a few more times before I’m done.” On another occasion, Bill was cross-examining a witness of suspect credibility. After the witness gave a less than forthright response, Bill looked sternly at him and with an authoritative tone said, “We’re going to take a break right now, and over the break I want you to think long and hard about the answer you just gave.” This was followed by the judge saying, “Well, I guess we’re taking a break now.”

Bill was a mentor to numerous lawyers at the firm. One would not describe his mentoring style as nurturing, but no one could deny that when you worked with Bill, you learned a lot and you learned it well. If he was not pleased with your work product, he would let you know in no uncertain terms. Occasionally, feedback came in large red letters on the legal opinion or memorandum you had written that spelled out “Wrong” or “Try Again”. However, when you got a nod of approval from Bill, it was gold. He was committed to excellence and made a point of telling clients that the firm hired only the very best people. He was so very proud of the firm and the people he worked with. Indeed, he had a keen eye for talent, whether that person was a firm member or a lawyer on the other side of the case. It goes without saying that his opinion was regularly sought when it came to hiring new lawyers and his opinion meant a great deal. At one meeting, as the partners were considering a potential new hire, Bill was asked if he had any thoughts. He responded, “I know him quite well and I have to tell you he’s just a wonderful guy—a real gentleman and one of the nicest fellows you will ever meet. Not much of a lawyer, but a really great guy.” The discussion came to an abrupt end.

At another meeting, the partners were discussing the admission to partnership of one of the firm’s senior associates. A partner who worked closely with the associate made the presentation. To say that his commentary on the associate was glowing is a vast understatement. He went to great lengths to describe the brilliance of the associate and was gushing with praise. When he was finally finished, Bill immediately piped up and said, “Well, before you started talking, I was going to vote ‘yes’.”

This was but one example of Bill’s sense of humour, which was demonstrated regularly, particularly in his later years at the firm. To young lawyers who had just joined the partnership, he was often heard to say, “At this firm, all partners are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” On a marketing trip to Toronto with one of his associates, the subject of an upcoming motion in Vancouver came up. There were several senior lawyers on the opposing sides, all of them Queen’s Counsel. Bill asked the associate whether the application was a winner. The young lawyer responded with an emphatic “no”. Bill said, with a friendly smile and encouraging slap on the back, “Fine then, you fly home and argue the motion. I’ll reschedule my flight and stay here for dinner with a friend.” The young associate caught the red eye and made it to court the following day for the expected result.

Bill retired from practice in 2017. The firm held a retirement dinner for him at the Four Seasons Hotel that was attended by all firm members and former Alexander Holburn partners and their spouses. There were several hundred people there—a testament to what Bill Holburn meant to his firm, now over 100 lawyers, and the people in it.

But, as much as Bill meant to the firm he built, he meant so much more to his family. Bill and Janet were married in 1966, having met at the University of Manitoba in 1963. Far from the gruff and gritty counsel we knew, Janet speaks of Bill the romantic—the love of her life and the only person she knew who could recite by heart the love poems of John Keats. They shared a loving bond for close to 60 years. Bill’s three children meant everything to him. He spoke often of them and was so very proud of their accomplishments. He cherished the time he was able to spend with them and his seven grandchildren.

In a stellar career, Bill earned the admiration and respect of his colleagues and has left a rich legacy of unyielding commitment to excellence, fairness and devotion to the law. There will never be another like him.

Bruno De Vita, K.C., Earnest C. Beaudin and F. Stuart Lang

The Honourable John Donald Truscott

The Honourable John D. Truscott, formerly a partner with Guild Yule LLP in Vancouver and for 15 years a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, passed away in September 2022 at the age of 74.

John was born in Saskatoon and educated at the University of Manitoba, obtaining a B.A. in 1968 and his LL.B. in 1971. The biographical sketch in the January 2003 edition of the Advocate that accompanied his appointment to the bench noted that his undergraduate major had been philosophy. This may have been surprising to even his closest colleagues, for John, while logical and analytical, was more practical than philosophical, and always at least as much an athlete as an academic.

He found articles with what was then the firm of Guild, Yule, Schmitt, Lane, and Hutcheon, where he remained on his call to the bar in 1972. He began his career as many young insurance litigators do, defending modest personal injury claims arising out of vehicle collisions, slip and falls, and other catastrophes of daily living. Exploding soda pop bottles was an early niche practice area. The regular departure of partners from the firm to the bench soon opened up opportunities and challenges, and John proved able to conduct with considerable skill the complex commercial, municipal and malpractice litigation that then came his way.

When a case needed to be fought, he did not shy away from court. His cross-examinations became legendary. But he did not sugar-coat his opinions, and made sure that his clients understood the risks of trial and the possibilities of settlement. They appreciated his frank advice. The compassion and empathy he demonstrated to plaintiffs he acted for in personal injury cases was extraordinary. He conducted his cases fairly, and opposing counsel knew that they could take him at his word.

John became a leader within the firm. He was a regular source of advice on the law, ethics and litigation tactics, for junior and senior lawyers. He was generous with his time, considerate, kind and discreet. And if you needed to drive out to Surrey to interview a witness, and could “drive stick”, he could usually be persuaded to hand over the keys to his Honda Accord— fully insured for business purposes—but always with a warning: “Don’t drive it like it’s your car. Drive it like it’s my car.” In some ways he was the conscience of the firm. His innate sense of right and wrong was often fundamental to building consensus. One example is that as the numbers of women graduates from law schools swelled in the late 1970s and 1980s, John’s inclusion and encouragement of young female lawyers set the tone. That was a time when clients might be opposed to a woman working on their files, but John would have none of that, and would insist that good lawyers be given a fair shake.

Bud Hollinrake and Lance Finch were mentors to John in his early years, and they passed on to him lessons they had learned from Frank Collier, who also became a lifelong friend. One such lesson in particular was viewed by John as the hallmark of the firm’s approach to litigation: know your own case, and know the other side’s case better than the other side knows it. He held his associates to that same standard of preparation. Many were the juniors who griped that up to the eve of a trial, John would have them rechecking even the most fundamental points of the evidence and rereading seemingly innocuous statutes and regulations, pressing them to tease out ambiguities and anticipate possible lapses in a witness’s memory, or off-thewall questions from the bench. (One classic example was the time his pregnant junior had gone into labour: as her husband begged her to get off the phone so they could go to the hospital, John kept her on the line, going over some of the finer points of a case set for trial the next day.) His juniors often saw in court how that level of attention to detail could pay off.

It was not all work and no play. John played intramural ice hockey, baseball and football as a younger man. Later in life he became an avid golfer and was a member at Quilchena. He was actively involved in the lives of his two children, Michael and Christine, and coached Michael’s hockey and baseball teams, the latter including a run to the national championships. Both children were inspired by his example to pursue careers in the justice system, Christine as a paralegal, Michael as a youth probation officer.

John was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1998 and to the Supreme Court in 2002. His judicial career was based in New Westminster. The filings in that registry, with the high volume of criminal and family law cases, present a pretty steep learning curve for a civil litigator, but again he proved able, and revelled in the challenges the work presented. The New West judges enjoy a fairly distinct atmosphere of collegiality and camaraderie, and John became an important part of daily life in the back halls of that courthouse. He often said that New Westminster was the best place to be a trial judge. He thoroughly appreciated his colleagues, and felt privileged to serve.

John and his wife Brenda had looked forward to him attaining supernumerary status after 15 years on the bench, and having more time to dote on grandchildren and travel together, but sadly John began experiencing issues with his memory, leading to him having to retire. He was eventually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. In his last years, he received excellent care from the staff at Laurel Place in Surrey. He is deeply missed.

The Honourable Anthony Saunders

One day in the mid-1980s, the MLA for Vancouver Centre addressed the legislature about what he believed to be serious deficiencies in British Columbia’s human rights legislation. But after confronting the appropriate minister on that issue, he turned his attention to another member of the Cabinet:

Before I take my seat, I want to the bring to the attention of the poor wretch up in Trail who is looking for his Volkswagen car seats that I think they have now become the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs’ jacket.

That small moment captured two of the defining features of Gary Lauk: a passionate commitment to social justice combined with a lively wit that delighted and disarmed even his political and legal adversaries.

Gary Vernon Lauk, K.C., died on November 21, 2022 at the age of 82. Tragically, his death came only two months after the death of his former wife and lifelong soulmate Rosemary Nash and three weeks after the death of their only son Greg.

Gary was born in Vancouver on September 7, 1940, and grew up mostly in New Westminster, where he graduated from high school. He liked to tell the story of the elementary school principal who called his mother into his office to tell her she should not expect her son to have any academic suc- cess. It is not known if that principal lived to see Gary become both a lawyer and the youngest Cabinet minister in British Columbia, if not in Canada.

Gary attended the University of British Columbia. Before being called to the bar in 1967, he articled with the legendary H.A.D. (later Justice) Oliver—an experience that not only became the source of many entertaining anecdotes over dinners, but also likely contributed to Gary’s penchant for hand-tied bow ties. He then practised with the equally legendary Harry Rankin, then in a successful partnership with Les Harowitz and Steve Tick.

But politics soon beckoned. In 1972, he was elected MLA for Vancouver Centre and became part of British Columbia’s first New Democratic Party government under Premier Dave Barrett. During that campaign, he characteristically decided he didn’t like the visual quality of the NDP’s election materials and hired a designer to develop a new logo. In another departure from standard political practice, he and Emery Barnes, his running mate in what was then a two-member riding, handed out flowers to voters during their early morning campaigning at bus stops.

I met Gary during my first career as a journalist, when I was assigned to assist in covering the Barrett government’s first winter/spring legislative session in 1973. (Newspapers actually reported on such things in those days.) Gary was then a government backbencher, seated in the House of Commons next to Graham Lea of Prince Rupert. They came to be known as “Heckle and Jeckle” for their lively interjections during debates. With the help of a rotating supporting cast of reporters and other MLAs, they also closed the Empress Hotel’s bar on many nights—sessions that were much more entertaining than whatever had gone on in the legislative chamber that day. At the time, Premier Barrett had let it be known that he would be expanding his Cabinet after the legislative session. The jockeying among backbenchers for the premier’s attention and approval was anything but subtle. One night at the Empress, Gary accused Lea of being so desperate for the promotion that he was washing Barrett’s car every weekend. “And it’s hard to do,” Lea replied, “because I have to keep saying ‘get out of the way, Lauk’.”

As things turned out, they both became Cabinet ministers in the spring of 1973, with no car washing having been involved. Gary became Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. He remained in Cabinet for the duration of the government’s time in office and, in the fall of 1975, became Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Early in his legal career, Gary met Rosemary Nash, who was to play vital roles in his political campaigns and constituency organization. They were living together when Gary joined the Cabinet, but Premier Barrett insisted that they get married before they joined him on a trade mission to Japan, where cohabitation outside of marriage was not yet common. Rosemary later attended law school and practised family law in Vancouver.

Although the Barrett government was defeated in the election of December 1975, Gary was re-elected, then held his seat through two more elections. He remained proud of the Barrett government’s achievements and his contributions to them, but found the life of an opposition MLA much less satisfying. By 1986, he was ready to leave politics. At the same time, Mike Harcourt felt he had accomplished what he had set out to do as mayor of Vancouver. They agreed that Gary would step down to allow Harcourt to replace him as NDP candidate in Vancouver Centre, paving the way for Harcourt to later become party leader and premier.

The high regard in which Gary was held by MLAs on both sides of the house was demonstrated shortly after he left politics. When the government appointed a commission to look into cost overruns on the construction of the Coquihalla Highway, a former Social Credit Cabinet minister retained Gary as his counsel when he was called to testify.

While he was an MLA, Gary continued to practise law as much as his political duties allowed, first with Turco Moscovich Aikenhead, then through Lauk and Associates Law Corporation. After his retirement from politics, he resumed full-time legal practice through Lauk and Associates. In the mid-1990s, that civil litigation firm joined forces with Terry La Liberté’s criminal practice under the name Lauk La Liberté. Although they did not meet and become friends until the early 1990s, Gary and Terry discovered (over fine wines at a dinner party) that they had graduated a few years apart from the same high school in New Westminster, had both served as altar boys at the same church in Sapperton, had both been articled to H.A.D. Oliver and had a long list of common acquaintances.

Gary’s diversified civil litigation practice included areas such as wrongful dismissal, defamation, commercial litigation and administrative law, but he was primarily known as plaintiffs’ counsel in a wide variety of personal injury and wrongful death cases. Those included motor vehicle collisions, other transportation incidents, medical malpractice, occupiers’ liability, civil assaults, recreational injuries and products liability. Working for individual plaintiffs was a natural area of practice for someone who believed as strongly as he did that justice can be achieved only when individuals who have no power are placed on an equal footing with society’s powerful institutions and individuals.

He was particularly known for his skill and success before civil juries. His ability to understand and relate to jurors, and the results that produced, probably owed something to his political experience in dealing with a wide range of voters. One former colleague describes him as “the best gut instinct jury lawyer I ever saw”.

Gary was a firm believer in and defender of the civil jury system. To him, the idea that jurors reflect community values in a way judges and lawyers never can was more than just a cliché. He was also outspoken in his belief that the civil jury system had to be defended from what saw as a relentless media campaign by powerful interests to undermine and ridicule it.

He had no patience with the argument that some cases, such as those involving alleged medical negligence, are just too technical and complicated for jurors to understand. He believed that any case could be made comprehensible to a jury if judges, lawyers and expert witnesses spoke in laypersons’ language and if careful pre-trial management by the court and counsel reduced the issues to a manageable and understandable form.

His confidence in the good sense of juries led to a simple theory of civil jury selection: “take the first eight.” But there were tactical exceptions. At one jury selection, a person called forward asked to be excused from serving and became visibly upset when the presiding judge was unsympathetic to her asserted hardship. Gary immediately won the favour of the entire jury panel when he rose and announced in front of them that although he was entitled to some pre-emptory challenges, he hadn’t planned to use them “on any of these good people,” but would use one to accommodate this reluctant juror.

Of course, even the best counsel sometimes need a little luck, and his former partner Derek Miura recalls one particular “Perry Mason moment”. They were acting for the plaintiff in a catastrophic injury case arising from a single-vehicle accident, which they alleged was caused by a failure of a tire that had been retreaded and repeatedly patched. The plaintiff’s case had focused primarily on one patch but, to Gary’s surprise, a number of the defendant tire repairer’s employees testified that they had never used that type of patch. That appeared to leave Gary with only an alternative argument based on a theory about the synergistic effect of multiple patches, which had been only passingly suggested in the evidence. Hoping to discuss that theory with someone knowledgeable before he tried to argue it, Gary consulted the mechanic who serviced his vintage 1966 Mercedes convertible, who in turn directed him to a tire patch sales representative. During a lengthy telephone conversation, the sales representative happened to mention that he had sold the type of tire patch in question to the defendant repairer who had denied using it. After that evidence was led in rebuttal, Gary’s client won a judgment based on one hundred per cent liability.

Gary began to wind down his practice in 2003. He transferred his files to Sporer Mah and Co. in New Westminster and remained associate counsel at that firm until his retirement in 2013.

As a plaintiffs’ lawyer, Gary was in a frequent adversary relationship with one of the most enduring creations of the government he once served in: the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. He believed the tort system was entirely compatible with public insurance. As an active member of the board of governors of the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (“TLABC”), he provided TLABC with invaluable advice on the workings of government and how TLABC needed to approach government in its lobbying efforts. That expertise was particularly vital in the mid-1990s when TLABC organized a public campaign that dissuaded the NDP government from introducing no-fault auto insurance. He spoke at a rally in downtown Vancouver and instructed a group of narrowly legalistic-thinking barristers about how to address the immediate interests of individual politicians and bureaucrats, based on the role of each in the legislative process. The fact that Gary was no longer able to assist may have contributed to TLABC’s loss when the same fight recurred with another NDP government some 25 years later.

Although he was no longer active in politics, it remained a matter of keen interest. He was always willing to talk politics and never shrank from firmly stating his views. Former TLABC president Don Renaud recalls an American Trial Lawyers Association (“ATLA”) conference when Gary got into a political argument with an equally accomplished plaintiffs’ lawyer from the other end of Canada: Ches Crosbie of the prominent Newfoundland Conservative family. According to Don, their debate became so animated that Ches’s wife, Lois Hoegg (now Justice Hoegg of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal), told Gary he was “nothing but a provocateur”. For some reason, the debaters found that to be so amusing they quickly became friends again. Don says that forever after Gary could always be teased with the “provocateur” label if he became too strident. (In the interest of fairness and balance, I must add that I am advised that neither Justice Hoegg nor Ches recalls this confrontation.) While most of Gary’s intense discussions with friends about politics and other subjects ended on a similarly pleasant note, there were some unfortunate occasions when they left wounds that were not as easily healed.

Gary was known as a lover of good food, good wine and good company. The late political reporter and columnist Marjorie Nichols once described him, during his time in the legislature, as the best dinner companion in the province. More recently, guests attending dinner parties at his home might find the owner of a leading Vancouver restaurant in the kitchen. The wine came from Gary’s famous cellar, which I’m told did not survive him, and conversation on a wide range of topics was informed by his eclectic reading. His regular attendance at ATLA conventions was partly about finding the best restaurants in whatever city was hosting the gathering. At one meeting in Chicago in the mid-1990s, Gary learned about a restaurant some 40 kilometres outside the city. He invited me, my wife Linda and Derek Miura to join him there, arranging transportation in a limousine that was well supplied with pre-dinner champagne.

Gary was an opera lover who travelled to famous opera houses around the world and was a regular at Vancouver Opera performances. Friends attending the same opera in Vancouver were often lucky enough to be treated to a pre-performance dinner and post-performance dessert (champagne included) at the long-gone but still lamented William Tell restaurant.

During the 1990s, Gary reconnected with the church he had grown up in and became a devout Catholic. Combining that faith with his love of music, he led a fundraising drive to restore the organ at Holy Rosary Cathedral. However, his home parish was St. Mark’s at UBC where, according to a fellow parishioner, he attended Mass every week and always sat directly in front of the choir. Because the church is on the UBC campus and associated with St. Mark’s College, the congregation included an ever-changing group of students, to whom Gary loved to talk. After Mass, he would regularly go to lunch with a small group of other parishioners and, of course, those lunches reportedly featured lively discussions and disagreements on a wide variety of issues, including the politics of the day. One participant recalls that whenever the name of a public figure in British Columbia or beyond came up, Gary always seemed to know, or at least have met, that person and would happily provide his opinion.

While travelling, Gary sought out local churches where he could attend Mass. One ATLA conference in Miami coincided with Ash Wednesday. Looking for a church where he could attend Ash Wednesday Mass, Gary discovered that Catholic churches are not easy to find in South Beach. He learned of one some distance away and invited Don Renaud and his wife Mary to join him. They turned out to be the only three non-Latinos at a Spanish Mass, much to the parish priest’s delight. After Mass, Don says: “Gary proudly wore the prominent black cross of ashes on his forehead as he carted us off to Joe’s Stone Crab for a great meal and much wine.”

Gary is survived by his granddaughter Lileitia and the family of his late brother Len Lauk: Karen Lauk, Len Lauk and Anita Mullaly and her children Meghan and Owen.

For his many friends in and outside the legal profession, the world has become a less interesting place without Gary Lauk in it. The Honourable Justice Nathan Smith