MENU

Trevor Bant

Profile

Trevor has a generalist litigation practice with an emphasis on public law. He has a broad range of experience acting for governments, statutory bodies and regulators, as well as for businesses and individuals in regulated industries and self-regulating professions.

Before joining the firm, Trevor clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada and for the Chief Justice of British Columbia at our Court of Appeal. He is a graduate of UBC Law and McGill.

Trevor sits on the executive of the Appellate Advocacy section of the Canadian Bar Association – BC Branch.

Trevor serves as a referral counsel for Access Pro Bono’s new Court of Appeal Program and often acts pro bono for low income individuals.

Outside the law, Trevor is a dedicated runner and outdoor enthusiast.

Notable Cases

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v Ezzati, 2018 BCSC 2006 (Co-counsel with Brent Olthuis): Obtained an order finding the respondent, who is not licensed to practice medicine in BC, guilty of contempt of court for having held herself out as being qualified to practise medicine on her website and Instagram profile, and for having referred to herself as “doctor”, all in breach of an interim injunction.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v Li, 2018 BCSC 923 (Co-counsel with Brent Olthuis): Obtained an order finding the non-registrant Li guilty of contempt of court for having breached an injunction by performing “East Asian blepharoplasty” (double eyelid surgery) on a client.

H(M) v Legal Services Society, 2018 BCSC 195 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Represented the Legal Services Society’s in a successful defence of a funding decision made in respect of the petitioner’s application for legal aid representation.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v Tan, 2017 BCSC 2233: Obtained an injunction for the petitioner Health College, preventing the respondent and her company from providing mole-removal services while not licensed as a medical professional.

Democracy Watch v British Columbia (Conflict of Interest Commissioner), 2017 BCCA 366 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Acted for the respondent Conflict of Interest Commissioner in proceedings seeking to challenge his opinion concerning certain activities of the then-Premier. The proceedings were dismissed with no impact on the Commissioner’s opinion.

Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 BCSC 1575 (co-counsel with Brent B. Olthuis): Represented the City of Richmond in an important application in a First Nations land claim, concerning the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify private landowners of their claim.

Law Society of British Columbia v Gurney, 2017 LSBC 32 (with Ken McEwan, Q.C., former counsel at the firm): successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in the disciplinary phase of professional misconduct proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions. The decision confirms that Law Society Hearing Panels have the power to order disgorgement of fees received by a lawyer as a result of his or her professional misconduct. (The earlier decision on misconduct is available at Law Society of British Columbia v Gurney, 2017 LSBC 15.)

In the matter of eight appeals under section 147 of the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157 (with Mark Oulton): successfully defended an application seeking summary dismissal of a series of stumpage appeals before the Forest Appeals Commission.

Lang v. Lapp, 2017 BCSC 670: an application for a declaration that a foreign default judgment would not be discharged in bankruptcy.

Northwest Organics, Limited Partnership v. Roest, 2017 BCSC 673 (with John Hunter, Q.C.): an appeal from a master’s order dealing with parliamentary privilege, case-by-case privilege and the scope of document production orders against non-parties.

Soprema Inc. v. Wolrige Mahon LLP, 2016 BCCA 471 (with Ken McEwan, Q.C.): an appeal concerning the test for implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege in court pleadings.

News

August 2019

Brent Olthuis, with Trevor Bant and a lawyer employed with government, represented the Attorney General and Director of Civil Forfeiture in petition proceedings challenging the Director’s authority to collect information from the RCMP and seeking certain relief under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court dismissed the petition and found the Director has lawful authority to collect information from the RCMP and to commence civil forfeiture proceedings on the basis of that information. A copy of the court’s reasons can be found here.

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant succeeded in an appeal for the College of Physicians and Surgeons, by broadening a finding of contempt of court against a non-registrant. The decision represents the first occasion on which the BC Court of Appeal has confirmed that giving advice on Botox and dermal filler injections for the purposes of obtaining the client’s informed consent constitutes the practice of medicine. A copy of the court’s reasons for judgment can be found here.

July 2019

Trevor Bant and Sarah Chaster appealed an order dividing two spouses’ family property unequally, acting for the spouse who received the smaller share. The reasons for judgment (which can be found here) provide guidance on the legal test for unequal division of family property and the factors a trial judge may consider when exercising his or her discretion to divide family property unequally.

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant successfully prosecuted a contempt of court application for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In the result, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that a non-registrant injected botulinum toxin into a client, in breach of an injunction. The court lifted the suspension it had placed on a 30-day sentence for an earlier contempt, and ordered the non-registrant to serve an additional 30 days in jail. In addition, the non-registrant was ordered to pay $7,500 ($300 of which will reimburse the person she injected).

April 2019

Four Hunter Litigation Chambers lawyers — Mike Stephens, Claire Hunter, Q.C., Trevor Bant and Julia Roos — were recognized in the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s 2018 Annual Report for their contributions to pro bono services on Court of Appeal cases in 2018.

January 2019

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the College of Physicians and Surgeons in contempt of court proceedings against a non-registrant who performed dermal filler injections contrary to an injunction. In the result, the contemnor was given a 30-day suspended sentence, a two-year term of probation and a $5,000 fine ($300 of which will reimburse a client), and ordered to pay the College “special costs”. A copy of the court’s reasons for judgment is here, and media coverage of the matter can be found here and here.

May 2018

Mark Oulton and Trevor Bant successfully defended an appeal brought by the Province from a decision of the Forest Appeals Commission dismissing their attempt to summarily dismissal of a series of stumpage appeals. The reasons of the Court are available here.

Brent Olthuis, with Trevor Bant, successfully prosecuted a contempt of court application on behalf of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. The respondent, who is not licensed to practise medicine, was found to have breached an injunction by performing “East Asian blepharoplasty” (double eyelid surgery) on a customer. The court’s reasons for judgment can be found here.

April 2018

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant obtained an order for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, enjoining a non-doctor and her corporation from injecting Botox and other dermal fillers. Media coverage of the case can be found here.

Brent Olthuis was in the news in relation to the opening of a high-profile civil forfeiture case: two of the media reports can be found here and here. The firm’s Trevor Bant and a lawyer with the Attorney General’s office round out the counsel team on the file.

Five Hunter Litigation Chambers lawyers — Mike Stephens, Brent Olthuis, Claire Hunter, Trevor Bant and Julia Roos — were recognized in the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s 2017 Annual Report for their contributions to pro bono services on Court of Appeal cases in 2017.

February 2018

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the Legal Services Society in a successful defence of a funding decision. A copy of the decision can be found here.

October 2017

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the British Columbia Conflict of Interest Commissioner in an appeal challenging an opinion the Commissioner rendered concerning the certain activities of the former Premier. The appeal was dismissed for reasons that can be found here.

On October 11, Rebecca Robb and Trevor Bant were recognized at the Access Pro Bono Society’s Annual General Meeting as among the Top 10 volunteers in the roster program for 2016. Rebecca was also in the top 10 civil chambers program volunteers. Congratulations to Rebecca and Trevor!

September 2017

Brent Olthuis and Trevor Bant represented the City of Richmond in an important application in a First Nations land claim, concerning the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify private landowners of their claim. A copy of the judgment can be found here.

Trevor Bant (with Ken McEwan, Q.C., former counsel at the firm) successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in the disciplinary phase of professional misconduct proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions. The decision, available here, confirms that Law Society Hearing Panels have the power to order disgorgement of fees received by a lawyer as a result of his or her professional misconduct. (The earlier decision on misconduct is available here.)

June 2017

Trevor Bant (with Mark Oulton) successfully defended an application seeking summary dismissal of a series of stumpage appeals before the Forest Appeals Commission. The reasons of the Commission are available here.

Trevor Bant (with Ken McEwan, Q.C.) successfully represented the Law Society of British Columbia in professional disciplinary proceedings concerning a lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of $26 million from offshore jurisdictions in 4 transactions. The decision confirmed important principles of lawyers’ self-regulation including when asked to facilitate a transaction that appears to be suspicious, a lawyer has a duty to make inquiries sufficient to establish, on an objective basis, that the transaction is legitimate, or should decline the engagement. The decision is available here.)

April 2017

Trevor Bant (with John Hunter, Q.C., former counsel at the firm) acted for a Member of the Legislative Assembly in a largely successful appeal dealing with parliamentary privilege, case-by-case privilege and the scope of document production orders against non-parties. The reasons for judgment are available here.