Maryanna Dinh


Maryanna Dinh is developing a general civil litigation practice.

Maryanna obtained her J.D. at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia in 2018. During law school, Maryanna competed in the Gale Cup Competitive Moot, worked as a student clinician at the Rise Women’s Legal Centre and volunteered as a student advocate at the Atira Legal Advocacy Program.

Before joining Hunter Litigation Chambers, Maryanna summered and articled at a national law firm in Vancouver and clerked for six justices of the British Columbia Supreme Court. Maryanna was called to the Bar of British Columbia in 2020.

Notable Cases

Notable Cases

Madadi v. British Columbia, 2023 BCSC 150 (with Claire Hunter K.C.): successfully resisted an application to add 16 proposed individual defendants to a misfeasance in public office lawsuit.

Interfor Corporation v. Mackenzie Sawmill Ltd., 2022 BCCA 228 (with Randy Kaardal, Q.C. and Julia Roos): successfully defended an appeal involving the operation of a force majeure clause and the doctrine of frustration in a breach of contract case.

Bajwa Farms Ltd. v. Bajwa, 2022 BCSC 1056 (with Claire Hunter, Q.C.): application to stay proceedings of a corporate plaintiff commenced at the behest of the president of the corporation only, without authorization from the board of directors nor leave of the Court.

Lo v. Vos, 2021 BCCA 421 (with Ryan Dalziel, Q.C.): appeal relating to pre-existing conditions and the proper approach to the assessment of future damages in a personal injury case.

Etemadi v. Maali, 2021 BCCA 298 (with Trevor Bant): appeal relating to an order under Rule 15-8 of the Supreme Court Family Rules granting the sale of a townhouse, subject to a third party interest, to fund an interim distribution of family property.



February 2023

Claire Hunter K.C. and Maryanna Dinh successfully resisted an application to add 16 proposed individual defendants to a misfeasance in public office lawsuit on the basis that the claim fails to disclose any cause of action against them and, in any event, would not be just and convenient in the circumstances, particularly given the recent Court of Appeal decision in British Columbia v. Greengen Holdings Ltd., 2023 BCCA 24. A copy of the decision can be found here.

June 2022

Randy Kaardal, Q.C., Julia Roos and Maryanna Dinh, acting on behalf of a major forest company, successfully defended an appeal from an order dismissing the defendants’ summary trial application and declaring that a series of fires did not discharge the defendants’ obligations under a force majeure clause in the subject contract nor frustrate the contract, in a case that has attracted national media attention. A copy of the decision can be found here.

Claire Hunter, Q.C. and Maryanna Dinh, on behalf of their clients, successfully stayed legal proceedings brought by a corporate plaintiff on the basis that the proceedings were not authorized by its board of directors and leave of the Court to commence a derivative action was not obtained. The decision clarifies the principles relating to the implied authority of an individual to commence legal proceedings in the name of a company. A copy of the decision can be found here.

May 2022

A Hunter Litigation Chambers team led by Claire Hunter Q.C., with the assistance of associates Simone Penney, Maryanna Dinh, Susan Humphrey and Nathan Wells following a 4-day hearing obtained a judgment setting aside an ex parte Mareva injunction against our client.

November 2021

Ryan Dalziel Q.C. and Maryanna Dinh successfully represented a plaintiff in her appeal of a trial judge’s assessment of non-pecuniary damages, future costs of care and loss of future earning capacity following a motor vehicle collision. The appeal reaffirmed the proper principles and approach to assessing future damages in the presence or absence of a pre-existing condition. A copy of the decision can be found here.

August 2021

Trevor Bant and Maryanna Dinh successfully defended an appeal from an order that an interim distribution of family property be paid to the respondent and, if necessary, real property subject to the beneficial interest of a third party be sold to enforce the interim distribution order. A copy of the decision can be found here.