Jim Lepp is Chair of Harper Grey LLP's Health Law practice group. He is a senior partner with an extensive civil litigation and appellate practice. 

Jim's primary emphasis is in the areas of medical malpractice and commercial litigation. Throughout his career, he has represented clients in a variety of forums, including the Labour Relations Board, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Supreme Court, British Columbia Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.   

Jim has litigated many cases before the British Columbia Supreme Court, has argued over 60 appeals in the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the last 25 years, and has made several appearances in the Supreme Court of Canada. He is recognized by both Lexpert and Best Lawyers as a leading practitioner in the areas of health law and medical negligence.

Representative Client Work

Medical Litigation

• Appeared as lead counsel in a number of Appeal cases which helped to define the test for causation in a medical context; C.P.M. (Guardian ad Litem of) v. Martin, 2006 BCCA 333; Seatle (Guardian ad Litem of) v. Purvis, 2007 BCCA 349; Sam v. Wilson, 2007 BCCA 622; and Bohun v. Segal, 2008 BCCA 23. 
• Represented a obstetrician who was alleged to have failed in his duty to correctly perform an abortion resulting in the birth of the compromised infant Plaintiff:  Cherry (Guardian Ad Litem of) v. Borsman (1992), 70 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273 (C.A.)
• Represented a plastic surgeon in the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in litigation involving a failed breast implant and culminating in an important decision establishing a manufacturer’s duty to warn of potentially hazardous medical products:  Hollis v. Birch (1993), 81 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.); Hollis v. Birch, [1996] 2 W.W.R. 77 (S.C.C.)
• Appeared as counsel for a physician in a necrotizing fasciitis case involving issues relating to a physician’s liability in contract, as opposed to tort, for the supposed “loss of a chance” of a better result:  de la Giroday v. Brough (1997), 33 B.C.L.R. (3d) 171 (B.C.C.A.)
• Represented a psychiatrist in a case involving attempted suicide from the psychiatric unit of a tertiary care facility:  Ganger (Guardian Ad Litem of) v. St. Paul’s Hospital (1997), 40 B.C.L.R. (3d) 116 (B.C.C.A.)
• Argued a physician’s immunity from suit as a consequence of alleged negligence during the treatment of a workplace injury.  The British Columbia Court of Appeal, on two occasions, found the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, granting immunity, patently unreasonable, decisions that were ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada:  Kovach v. Workers’ Compensation Board (B.C.) et al (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 176 and 137 W.A.C. 176 (B.C.C.A.); Kovach, Re (1998), 52 B.C.L.R. (3d) 98 (B.C.C.A.); Kovach v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 55 (S.C.C.)

Commercial Litigation

• Represented tenants in a variety of complex commercial lease cases at the trial and appellate level:  Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. v. 1854 Hldg. Ltd. (1990), 52 B.C.L.R. (2d) 279 (C.A.); Bucci Investments Corp. v. Great Pacific Industries Inc. (24 March 1999), Vancouver CA024718 (B.C.C.A.)
• Represented the anchor tenant in a dispute over the development of a proposed shopping centre:  Dallas Park Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Buy-Low Foods Ltd., (October 24, 2002) Vancouver Registry No. CA028633 (B.C.C.A.)
• Represented a logging contractor in a dispute regarding a unit price logging contract with the Greater Vancouver Regional District:  C & R Logging Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Regional District et al. (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 18 and 129 W.A.C. 18 (B.C.C.A.)
• Acted as counsel for individuals in a case involving allegations of misrepresentation, fraudulent conveyances, fraudulent preferences, and bankruptcy:  Jaston & Co. v. McCarthy (1998), 59 B.C.L.R. (3d) 168 (B.C.C.A.) 

Insurance Law

• Acted for the provincial professional liability insurer of lawyers in a case determining that after securing judgment against a solicitor, the third party claimants could not seek recovery because it could not be said the claim was for injury or damage to the person or property, pursuant to the insurance legislation then in force:  Starr Schein Ent. Inc. v. Gestas Corp. Ltd. (1987), 13 B.C.L.R. (2d) 85 (C.A.)
• Counsel for a life insurer who successfully denied coverage following a finding that the life insured had misrepresented his medical and insurance history on an application for insurance:  Armstrong v. North West Life Ins. Co. of Canada (1990), 48 B.C.L.R. (2d) 131 (C.A.)
• Acted for an insured following injuries to the Plaintiff, incorporating issues of remoteness, foreseeability and the liability of joint and several tortfeasors:  Harrison v. Biggs (1992), 74 B.C.L.R. (2d) 164 (C.A.)

Construction Law

• Acted for a contractor in a multi-million dollar claim that was successfully resolved, following over 100 days of arbitration, by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal:  Crown Forest Industries Limited v. Commonwealth Construction Company Limited (15 January 1990) Vancouver CA008775 (C.A.)
• Acted for a developer in a case involving the rupture of a major gas pipeline during construction:  British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Marathon Realty Co. Ltd. et al (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 185 and 22 W.A.C. 185 (B.C.C.A.)

Procedural and Limitation Period

• Appeared as counsel before a five judge panel to determine what triggered the running of time for the commencement of a lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979:  Levitt v. Carr (1992), B.C.L.R. (2d) 58 (B.C.C.A.)
• Medical malpractice case involving an explanation of the ambit of the decision of the Court in Levitt v. Carr in circumstances where the injured Plaintiff failed to start his lawsuit while pursuing a claim for Workers’ Compensation:  Vance v. Peglar (1996), 22 B.C.L.R. (3d) 251 (C.A.)
• A health law case involving the issue of what documents relating to a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons had to be disclosed in the context of subsequent civil proceedings:  Beale v. Nagra (1998), 57 B.C.L.R. (3d) 322 (B.C.C.A.)
• An appeal involving the issue of what costs could be claimed by one successful Defendant against another successful Co-defendant:  Moore v. Castlegar & District Hospital (1998), 59 B.C.L.R. (3d) 368 (B.C.C.A.)
• An appeal that decided what evidence, and professional opinions, could be obtained pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of Court:  Sinclair v. March (2002) 210 D.L.R. (4th) 170 (B.C.C.A.)

Professional & Civic Activities

• Member, Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch - Civil Litigation and Health Law subsections
• Member, Vancouver Bar Association
• Member, The Defence Research Institute
• Member, Medical-Legal Society of British Columbia
• Past Lecturer, Continuing Legal Education seminars on topics related to medical malpractice, insurance law, civil litigation and employment law

Background

Born and raised in Ontario, Jim lives in the lower mainland with his wife and daughter. He enjoys reading, travel, photography and skiing.