Our Team

All Lawyers
Ian D. Mackie


Ian practices in the areas of; employment law, serious personal injury claims, professional negligence; estate litigation; disability claims; corporate and commercial litigation; and insurance defence. He appears regularly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

Recent decisions | Representative Work

Mr. Mackie has a broad civil litigation practice including but not limited to:

  • commercial disputes
  • employment law
  • estate litigation
  • defence of professionals
  • disability litigation
  • insurance defence
  • personal injury


  • In Maruniak v. Teamsters National Benefit Plan, 2015 BCPC #C14956, Mr. Mackie represented the Teamsters National Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) in the defence of a claim by the Plaintiff that the Plan had improperly ceased to pay him long term disability benefits.  Mr. Mackie’s argument that the Courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim because the Plaintiff’s entitlement to disability benefits was subject to a collective agreement was accepted by the Court and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plan was dismissed.
  • Taylor v. Cooper and The Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Vancouver, A Corporation Sole (the Archdiocese of Vancouver), 2013 BCSC 2073 (CanLII), In this action Mr. Mackie represented the Archdiocese of Vancouver in the defence of a claim of sexual exploitation by the Defendant Cooper who was a priest with the Archdiocese of Vancouver at the material time.  By the time the Plaintiff commenced her action against the Defendants it was almost 25 years after the initial sexual exploitation was alleged to have taken place.  The claim was set for a 20 day trial.  The Plaintiff disclosed that she had maintained journals for a 10 year period for which she claimed privilege from production.  The Plaintiff relied on a decision form the B.C. Court of Appeal in support of her position that she did not have to produce the journals to Mr. Mackie, counsel for the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Counsel for the Appellant in the Court of Appeal decision was also counsel for the Plaintiff in this case.  Upon application to Court for an Order for the production of the journals Mr. Mackie succeeded in distinguishing the Court of Appeal authority relied on by the Plaintiff.  Mr. Mackie also succeeded in arguing that portions of the psychologist’s Affidavit relied on by the Plaintiff in support of her refusal to provide the journals to the Defendants were not admissible and ought not to be accepted by the Court.  The Court concluded that the journals were not privileged and ordered them to be produced to counsel for the Defendants.
  • Collins v. Mainroad Contracting, 2012 BCSC 1460 (CanLII), In this action Mr. Mackie represented Mainroad Contracting Ltd., a highway maintenance contractor for the Province of British Columbia.  The Plaintiff’s claim arose out of a single vehicle accident at the north end of the George Massey Tunnel.  The Plaintiff’s allegations against Mainroad related to claims for failing to maintain the highway at the location of the accident to prevent icy conditions from developing.  The trial on the issue of liability for the accident was set for 10 days.  In order to prove the Plaintiff’s case, they sought to qualify an expert to opine on the ice melting properties of certain ice melting chemicals.  Mr. Mackie successfully argued that, based on the expert’s answers on cross- examination conducted by Mr. Mackie, the expert was not qualified to give the opinions the Plaintiff sought to tender through the expert.  The Court found that the expert was not qualified to give the opinions.  After the Plaintiff had closed their case, Mr. Mackie applied to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that the Plaintiff required expert evidence on the standard of care applicable to a highway maintenance contractor in order to succeed in their claim.  The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims because they had failed to tender expert evidence on the standard of care.  The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed after 4 days of the scheduled 10 day trial.
  • In Murray v. Township of Langley, 2010 BCSC 102, Mr. Mackie was co-counsel in the defence of the Township of Langley in an action brought by the Plaintiffs against:  the vendor of property they purchased; the Township of Langley; and an engineering firm for damages resulting from a slope failure allegedly caused by a stream being diverted resulting in a failure at the toe of the slope upon which the Plaintiffs’ house was located.  After a 5 day summary trial the Court concluded that the matter could not be resolved without cross-examination of the experts for the parties.  The lands in question had at one time been part of the Railway belt lands and the complex issues involved included:  the ownership of the stream bed; liability for nuisance; and whether the Natural Watercourse exception continues to apply in BC.
  • Pearce and Pearce v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver and others (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 291 (June 16, 2006), This involved complaints filed pursuant to the Human Rights Code against eighteen Respondents.  The complaints were extensive and including amendments and schedules were more than 300 pages in length.  Mr. Mackie acted for all of the Respondents.  At an early stage of the proceedings Mr. Mackie succeeded in his application to have the complaints filed by Renee M. Pearce against all Respondents dismissed on the grounds that it was filed out of time.  Mr. Mackie also succeeded in his application to have the complaint filed by Jeffrey D. Pearce dismissed against all but three of the Respondents on the grounds that it was filed out of time.
  • Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton (2005) 37 B.C.L.R. (4th) 62 (BCCA) [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 127 (cited in B.C. Annual Practice 2016 and in British Columbia Supreme Court Rules Annotated 2016), This was an appeal of an award of nominal damages of $100.00 for professional negligence following a 10 day trial. Mr. Mackie acted for the Respondent, Harper Grey Easton, a large Vancouver law firm.  The law firm cross appealed the trial judge’s refusal to award it its costs of the trial following the delivery of a formal offer to settle which exceeded the $100.00 judgment the Plaintiff recovered.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and granted the cross appeal advanced by Mr. Mackie.  The Court held that when the costs provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, which applied at the time, have been fully complied with a trial judge does not have the discretion not to award costs to the party making the offer to settle in accordance with Rule 37.  This was the leading authority in British Columbia addressing a trial judge’s lack of discretion to deny a party its costs where the requirements of Rule 37 have been met.  Ms. Cridge applied for leave to appeal the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in his argument that leave to appeal ought not to be granted and his client was awarded costs.
  • San Jose Mines Ltd. v. Jorgensen Unreported, November 26, 2004, Vancouver Registry L023369/S036753 (BCSC), This was a commercial dispute over Mr. Mackie’s client’s entitlement to $1 million worth of shares of San Jose Mines Ltd. Opposing counsel improperly sought to rely on an Affidavit which had not been provided in accordance with the time requirements of the Rules of Court.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in his application for costs of $1,500.00 to be paid by the party whose lawyer was found to have abused the court process.
  • San Jose Mines Ltd. v. Jorgensen [2004] B.C.J. No. 2853 (BCSC), In this complex action, Mr. Mackie succeeded in obtaining shares of San Jose Mines Ltd. worth $1 million for his clients.  The entitlement to the shares was in issue because it was argued:  that there was no subscription for the shares; the shares had not been paid for; the shares were subject to preemptive rights; and the shares were subject to escrow terms which had not been satisfied. The claim was complicated by the fact that the entitlement to the shares arose in the mid 1980s and those having direct involvement with the share entitlement were deceased.
  • Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton [2004] B.C.J. No. 130 (BCSC), This was a claim against Harper Grey Easton, a law firm, for breach of contract and professional negligence arising out of events that occurred in the 1960s.  Mr. Mackie represented the law firm.  All of those involved, including the partners of the Defendant law firm who had had involvement with the claim, but for the Plaintiff were deceased or incompetent to give evidence at trial.  The trial related to the alleged negligence of a lawyer in 1964 (the Initial Lawyer) and the further negligence of a partner of Harper Grey Easton between 1967 and 1985 in failing to pursue a claim of professional negligence against the Initial Lawyer.   Despite the fact that the Plaintiff was the only witness at trial who could give evidence as to the events in question between 1962 and 1985, Mr. Mackie succeeded in proving that the claim against the Initial Lawyer was certain to fail.  After a 10 day trial the Plaintiff recovered a judgment for nominal damages of $100.00 for breach of contract. Prior to the commencement of the trial the Plaintiff had offered to settle for $3.1 million.
  • Lawrence v. Sandilands [2003] B.C.J. No. 343 (BCSC) (cited in British Columbia Supreme Court Rules Annotated 2016), In this action Mr. Mackie represented a large law firm and two of its senior partners who were appointed Queens Counsel.  The Plaintiffs claimed against the law firm and its partners for maliciously prosecuting a claim against them resulting in a judgment for $9 million.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in striking the claim against his clients at an early stage and also obtained an award of special costs against the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs appealed the decision however the appeal was abandoned.
  • Cridge v. de Vooght et al [2003] BCSC 2019, Mr. Mackie acted in the defence of Harper Grey Easton & company, a law firm, in a claim for solicitors’ negligence which was claimed to have occurred between 1967 and 1985.  Approximately two months prior to the scheduled 10 day trial the Plaintiff issued a Notice of Trial by Jury (the “Jury Notice”).  Mr. Mackie succeeded in opposing the Plaintiff’s application to extend the time for filing the Jury Notice and he obtained an order for costs payable to the Defendant in any event of the cause.
  • Golden Capital Securities Ltd. v. Holmes and McLachlan Brown Anderson Holmes, a law firm [2003] B.C.J. 1894; (2003) 22 B.C.L.R. (4th) 171 (BCSC), Following the dismissal of the claims against the law firm he represented, Mr. Mackie sought to recover the costs of defending the claim from the Plaintiff,  Golden Capital Securities Ltd. (“Golden Capital”).  Golden Capital argued that     Mr. Mackie’s clients ought to recover their costs, which were more than $200,000.00, from their former partner. Mr. Mackie succeeded in obtaining an award of costs at Scale 4 to be paid by Golden Capital as well as an award of special costs to be paid by the former partner of the firm.
  • Stone Venepal (Celgar) Pulp Inc. v. IMO Industries (Canada) Inc. [2002] B.C.J. No. 2203 (BCSC) (cited in British Columbia Annual Practice 2016 and in British Columbia Supreme Court Rules Annotated 2016), In this action Mr. Mackie acted for the Plaintiffs who were pursuing a claim for damages as a result of two failures of a steam turbine which originally was put into service in 1993. The failures occurred in 1994 and 1996. Mr. Mackie succeeded on an application to amend the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim to raise a claim in negligence against the Defendant’s US parent company. This despite the   fact that the claim in negligence had been made in the original Writ of Summons but not adopted in the Statement of Claim and the amendment was sought after the limitation period pertaining to one of the failures had expired.  This is the only authority in British Columbia dealing with the provisions of section 4(4) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. and the issue as to whether the issue could be considered a fresh cause of action even though not repeating the allegations of negligence made in the Writ of Summons in the Statement of Claim constituted an abandonment of the claims made in the Writ of Summons.
  • Golden Capital Securities Ltd. v. Holmes [2002] B.C.J. No. 2381; (2002) 9 B.C.L.R. (4th) 83, Mr. Mackie acted on behalf of a law firm where a partner in the firm was alleged to have been one of the architects of a conspiracy to trade in bonds without providing the necessary margin.  The allegation against the law firm was that it was liable for the acts of its partner pursuant to the provisions of the Partnership Act, R.S.B.C. Following a trial which lasted more than 80 days, Mr. Mackie succeeded in his defence of the law firm. The claim against them was dismissed.  This was the longest civil trial in British Columbia in 2002.
  • Golden Capital Securities Ltd. v. Holmes [2002] B.C.J. No. 884 (BCSC) (cited in British Columbia Annual Practice 2016 and in British Columbia Supreme Court Rules Annotated 2016), During the course of a lengthy trial involving a claim of civil conspiracy      involving the trading of bonds, the Plaintiff sought to introduce two hours of tape recordings, allegedly made by the conspirators, to support the Plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy.  Mr. Mackie successfully opposed the admission into evidence of the tape recordings.  Had the tape recordings been admitted into evidence the trial which took more than 80 days would have been much longer.
  • March v. Tam [2002] B.C.J. No. 1749 (BCSC), In this action Mr. Mackie acted on behalf of the insurer for homeowners who were sued by a tenant who alleged that she had become totally disabled as a result of chemicals introduced into the rental premises by those hired by Mr. Mackie’s clients.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in an application to have the Plaintiff’s claim struck out due to the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s failure to proceed with the action in a timely fashion.  Mr. Mackie’s success in having the claim struck was unusual because the courts in British Columbia had often in the past considered a lawyer’s delay in prosecuting a claim to be an acceptable excuse and had in the past refused to strike the claim.
  • Ngai (guardian ad litem of) v. Cho et al [2001] B.C.J. No. 383; reported at (2001) 7 C.P.C. (5th) 90 (BCSC) (cited in British Columbia Annual Practice 2016 and in British Columbia Supreme Court Rules Annotated 2016), In this action the infant Plaintiff was 14 months old when he was run over by a truck.  The Plaintiff advanced a claim of brain injury and other serious injuries.  Mr. Mackie acted for the Defendants, Fan Tower and Tang.  The Plaintiff had a difficult case on liability and for this reason wanted the action tried by a judge and jury.  The Plaintiff’s lawyer had not delivered the Jury Notice within the time required by the Rules of Court.  The Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the failure to issue the Jury Notice in time was his offices fault and that the Plaintiff ought not to lose the right to a trial by jury due to their lawyer’s negligence.  Mr. Mackie argued that it was no longer the law in British Columbia that the lawyer’s negligence in failing to issue the Jury Notice in time was a sufficient reason to extend the time for filing the Jury Notice where the materials filed by the Plaintiff in support of the application did not show that the Plaintiff had an intention to have a jury trial within the period within which a Jury Notice could properly have been issued by the Plaintiff.  The trial judge refused to extend the time to file the Jury Notice.  The Plaintiff sought leave to appeal the trial judge’s decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in his argument that the Court of Appeal ought not to grant leave to appeal.  This was the leading decision in British Columbia in deciding that a lawyer’s negligence in failing to issue a jury notice in time is not a sufficient reason for extending the time to file a Notice of Trial by Jury.
  • Jennens v. McAfee [1998] B.C.J. No. 2836 (BCSC), In this action Mr. Mackie acted in the defence of a number of lawyers and their law firms.  The Plaintiffs claimed damages for professional negligence against Mr. Mackie’s clients.  Early in the litigation Mr. Mackie applied for an order that the Plaintiffs’ post security for costs of the action.  This would establish a fund from which Mr. Mackie’s clients could recover their costs in the event that Mr. Mackie’s clients succeeded in their defence.  The Plaintiffs’ claim was complex and the Plaintiffs’ List of Documents was 70 pages in length.  The Plaintiffs’ documents were said to be contained in 61 “file boxes”.  The trial was estimated to be 20 days in length.  Mr. Mackie obtained an order requiring the Plaintiffs to pay the sum of $50,000.00 into court as security for costs.  The sum was never paid and the Plaintiffs did not proceed with the action.
  • Turner v. Ashmar Developments [1997] B.C.J. No. 3254 (BCSC), Mr. Mackie acted in the defence of a number of lawyers and their firms in claims of professional negligence.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in obtaining an order for security for costs of $35,000.00 against the individual Plaintiff in this action.  The court stated that the power to make an order for security for costs against an individual who resides in the province must be exercised “cautiously, sparingly and under very special circumstances”.  This is one of very few cases in British Columbia where an order for security for costs has been made against an individual.
  • Morton v. Harper Grey Easton [1996] B.C.J. No. 1144 (BCCA), Mr. Mackie acted on behalf of the law firm of Harper Grey Easton & Company.  This was an appeal by a former client of Harper Grey Easton & Company of the dismissal of her appeal from the taxation of Harper Grey Easton & Company’s account for legal services.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in having the appeal dismissed.  The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that it could not substitute its view of the evidence and the findings of credibility for those of the Registrar.  This was the leading authority in British Columbia on this issue.
  • Jervis Court Development Ltd. v. Ricci [1992] B.C.J. No. 2539 (BCSC), Mr. Mackie acted on behalf of a number of lawyers and their firms in the defence of claims of professional negligence.  The Plaintiff issued a notice to have the action tried by a judge and jury.  Mr. Mackie succeeded in opposing the application that the trial be heard by a judge and jury.
  • Coughlin v. Kuntz 17 B.C.L.R. (2d) 365; 42 C.C.L.T. 142; appeal dismissed, In this action Mr. Mackie acted on behalf of a Plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident in July 1981.  His main injury was to his left shoulder and he continued to complain to his physician of shoulder pain until November 1981 when he was referred to the Defendant, an orthopaedic surgeon.  The Defendant made an initial diagnosis of painful arc syndrome in the Plaintiff’s left shoulder, but decided to order cervical spine x-rays. In the x-rays he noticed a narrowing of the C5-6 disc space and decided that this was contributing to the shoulder problem. Accordingly, he recommended to the Plaintiff that he undergo an anterior cervical dystectomy and “instant inter-body fusion”, a procedure   developed by the Defendant that involved the insertion of a plastic spacer in the disc space.  The spacer was homemade by the Defendant.  Prior to Mr. Mackie’s client consulting with the Defendant the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia had become concerned about the Defendant’s use of a technique that was untested, except on the Defendant’s patients. The College asked that he not use this procedure until it could be fully scrutinized by the medical community.  Within weeks of the surgery the artificial spacer slipped forward and jutted into the Plaintiff’s esophagus.  This condition was physically irritating and caused the Plaintiff substantial mental anguish.  At the same time, the shoulder problem did not resolve and the Defendant booked the Plaintiff for shoulder surgery.  The Plaintiff decided not to proceed, having lost confidence in the Defendant.  The Plaintiff consulted another orthopaedic surgeon and eight months later that surgeon operated on the Plaintiff to remove the spacer and to replace it with a bone graft.  This orthopaedic surgeon also operated on the Plaintiff shoulder.  That operation did not cure the shoulder problem.  Further shoulder surgery in March 1984 resolved this problem.  Mr. Mackie, on the Plaintiff’s behalf, brought an action for damages for negligence saying that he underwent two unnecessary neck operations, that he was improperly diagnosed and treated, that he had not given informed consent, and that he suffered pain and disability with resulting loss of earnings over a period of two years from when the shoulder surgery should have been performed.  The Plaintiff also claimed exemplary damages.  The court found the Defendant, orthopaedic surgeon, to have been negligent in his care of the Plaintiff.  The court also found that the Defendant’s surgical procedure was experimental and unsupported by clinical study and that this constituted negligence.  The court found that the Plaintiff’s consent to the surgery was not an informed consent because the Defendant had negligently failed to communicate to him the experimental nature of the surgery, the potential risks and the fact that alternative procedures including conservative treatment were available.  The Plaintiff was awarded damages including damages for pain and suffering and past wage loss.  The court also found the Defendant’s conduct to be reprehensible warranting an award of punitive damages.  The decision was appealed by the Defendant orthopaedic surgeon.  However, the appeal was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
  • Stephens v. Broomhead [1983] B.C.J. No. 2030; (1984), 39 R.F.L. (2d) 27 (BCSC), In this family law proceeding there was an application by the natural father of the child for access to that child.  The child was the result of a common-law relationship.   The mother of the child left the relationship taking the child with her. Subsequently she married and she and her husband adopted the child.   The biological father had not had access to the child for a substantial period due to the refusal of the mother to grant him access.  Mr. Mackie acted for the mother in her opposition to the biological father having access to the child.  The court found that there was no basis on which the biological father had disentitled himself to access, however, the court found that the resumption of contact between the biological father and the child might subject the child to emotional problems.  The court concluded that the biological father ought not to have access to the child.


Education | Professional Affiliations


  • 1982 – Bachelor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
  • 1979 – Bachelor of Arts, Simon Fraser University (Honours First Class – Economics)

Professional Affiliation:

  • Member, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Civil Litigation Section (Vancouver), Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Employment Law Section, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Human Rights Law Section, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Insurance Law Section, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Pension & Benefits Section, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
  • Member, Wills and Trusts Section (Vancouver), Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch
Publications | Seminars


  • Contributory Negligence and Vicarious Liability, The Advocate, Volume 62, Part 3, page 365, May 2004


  • October 2015 – Fundamentals of Employment Law presented to the principals of the schools of the Catholic Independent Schools Vancouver Archdiocese
  • May 2007 – Characteristics of Not for Profit Directors and Officers Liability presented to Ecclesiastical Insurance Company, Calgary, Alberta
Community Involvement
  • Member of the Board of Variance Village of Lions Bay 2005 (continuing)
  • Member of the Village of Lions Bay Film Committee 2014
  • Member of the Lions Bay Fire and Rescue Foundation 2005
  • Member, Village of Lions Bay Bylaw Review Committee 2015