Ryan J. Androsoff
Ryan Androsoff maintains a wide-ranging litigation practice with particular focuses on estates and trusts litigation, real estate disputes, and corporate litigation. Ryan has represented parties in administrative hearings, at all levels of court in British Columbia, and in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Ryan ran and won his first trial while still a law student at the University of Victoria's Law Centre clinical program. During law school, Ryan participated in the Gale Cup Moot, winning the Peter Cory prize for best written argument. After working at a leading Vancouver criminal law firm in winter 2008 and summer 2009, Ryan joined a prominent Vancouver regional firm in 2010 as a summer articled student. He returned there in 2012 to article and practice after clerking at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, joining Hunter Litigation Chambers in 2016.
Pinnacle Gaming Solutions Inc. v. BC Lottery Corporation, 2019 BCSC 1501: represented the British Columbia Lottery Corporation in successfully defending an application challenging the Corporation’s claim of solicitor-client privilege.
In the Matter of the Water Polo Canada Code of Conduct with Disciplinary Procedure (with Rebecca J. Robb): represented Water Polo Canada in this disciplinary proceeding in successfully proving major infractions of Water Polo Canada’s Code of Conduct with Disciplinary Procedure, and obtaining the sanction against the registrant of a permanent ban from future registration or participation in Water Polo Canada events or activities.
Thomas Fresh Inc. and Prokam Enterprises Ltd. v. BC Vegetable Marketing Commission: (co-counsel with Claire E. Hunter, Q.C.): represented the appellants in successfully appealing a decision of the Commission on the basis that the Commission had not complied with the legislative requirements for setting minimum prices for export sale of potatoes grown in British Columbia.
Cowper-Smith v. Morgan,  2 S.C.R. 754, 2017 SCC 61 (co-counsel with Claire E. Hunter, Q.C.): represented the respondent in the Supreme Court of Canada in this leading case on proprietary estoppel.
Nelson (City) v. Mowatt,  1 S.C.R. 138, 2017 SCC 8 (co-counsel with K. Michael Stephens): represented the respondent in the Supreme Court of Canada in this leading case on adverse possession.
Bison Properties Ltd. (Re), 2016 BCSC 507 (co-counsel with David Gruber): in the context of a real estate developer's insolvency proceeding, acted for purchasers of real estate development units in successfully resisting the secured lenders' summary dismissal application.
Pioneer Distributors Ltd. v. Orr, 2015 BCSC 461 (co-counsel with Alexander Mitchell): acted for a former employee in successfully resisting his former employer's petition for judicial review from an Employment Standards Tribunal order awarding him vacation pay.
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, rev'g 2013 BCCA 435 (co-counsel with Tim Dickson): acted for an intervener in successfully arguing that the criminalization of a competent, interminably ill, and grievously suffering patient's choice to seek physician-assisted death is unconstitutional.
Bull Estate v. Bull, 2015 BCSC 136 (co-counsel with Rebecca Morse): acted for an executor in successfully obtaining probate of a contested will.
Mangat (Re), 2013 LSBC 20 (co-counsel with George Macintosh, Q.C.): acted for a successful applicant for call and admission to the bar of British Columbia.
Kennedy, R., Wagner, M., and Androsoff, R. "Liability Releases in the Sport, Recreation, and Adventure Tourism, Context." Vancouver, BC: Continuing Legal Education Society of BC, 2015
Claire Hunter Q.C. and Ryan Androsoff successfully appealed an order striking parts and staying others of a notice of civil claim in an action for misfeasance in public office. The reasons for judgment in Myers v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 160 are available here.
Ryan Androsoff acted as counsel for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation in successfully defending an application challenging the Corporation’s claim of solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued that solicitor-client privilege did not apply to the discussions and documents over which privilege was claimed, and if privilege did apply, that the Corporation had impliedly waived privilege in its pleadings. The Court upheld the claim of solicitor-client privilege and held that on application of the proper test there had been no implied waiver. The Court’s reasons for judgment are available here.
Claire Hunter, Q.C. and Ryan Androsoff were counsel to Thomas Fresh Inc., a major vegetable wholesaler, and Prokam Enterprises Ltd., a vegetable producer, in a successful appeal to the Farm Industry Review Board from decisions of the BC Vegetable Marketing Commission. In a decision following an 8-day hearing in the spring of 2018, the FIRB found that the Commission had exceeded its authority by purporting to set minimum prices for the sale of British Columbia potatoes into Alberta and Saskatchewan without complying with the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act. The Hunter Litigation Chambers team that assisted with this hearing also included Aubin Calvert and co-op student Diana Sepulveda. The decision is available here.
On December 14, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada has released its reasons for judgment in Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, an important case on estate law and the law of proprietary estoppel, available here. Claire Hunter and Ryan Androsoff were counsel for the respondent Gloria Morgan at the Supreme Court of Canada. Claire was also quoted in the Lawyers Daily about the significance of the decision for the test for proprietary estoppel.
Randy Kaardal, Q.C., Ryan Androsoff, and Rebecca Robb represented an Alberta-based Rural Electrification Association in successfully defending against an application brought by the adverse electrical distribution utility for a declaration that an arbitrator had lost jurisdiction to deal with costs. The utility sought to deny the Association the opportunity to claim its costs of a lengthy and hard-fought arbitration brought under the Alberta Electric Utilities Act and the related Roles, Relationships and Responsibilities Regulation in which the Association enjoyed substantial success. The arbitrator’s ruling that he retains jurisdiction to deal with costs means the Association may now seek recovery from the utility of the considerable expense it incurred in the course of the arbitration.