Ruloff Capital Corporation v Hula
Ruloff Capital Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

N.W. Nichols

Walter Ruloff
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

N.W. Nichols

Brymak Holdings Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

N.W. Nichols

Daniel B. Klemke
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

N.W. Nichols

Errol Hula
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Karen Hula
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
T.S. (Tony) Frost aka Anthony Stephen Frost
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Hulavision Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Keith E. Spencer
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

Keith E. Spencer Law Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

Geoffrey Cowper
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

D. Geoffrey Cowper Law Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

David N. Corbett
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

Peter Feldberg
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

William Westeringh
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C. Dennis

R. Power

In the case of Ruloff Capital Corporation v Hula, which was dated July 10, 2023, the lawyer defendants, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Keith E. Spencer, Keith E. Spencer Law Corporation, Geoffrey Cowper, D. Geoffrey Cowper Law Corporation, David N. Corbett, Peter Feldberg, and William Westeringh had applied for the trial of this action to be conducted without a jury. The plaintiffs, Ruloff Capital Corporation, Walter Ruloff, Brymak Holdings Ltd., and Daniel B. Klemke alleged breach of professional responsibilities and ethical duties by the lawyer defendants. The lawyer defendants argued that the case was complex and required prolonged examination of documents. They claimed that civil juries were intended for simple cases. The plaintiffs sought large damages. The lawyer defendants denied the allegations and stated that the plaintiffs' claims were not valid. The court ruled in favor of the lawyer defendants, deciding that the trial would be heard without a jury. The lawyer defendants were awarded costs.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
S211878
Civil litigation
Defendant