J. Raymond Pollard, Associate Counsel

Tel: 604.661.9215 Fax: 604.688.3830

Email: rpollard@rbs.ca

Education

1975, LL.B., University of British Columbia 
1970, B.A., Simon Fraser University

Bar Admission

1976, British Columbia

Profile

Richards Buell Sutton LLP and predecessor firm to date. Member of the management committee from 1990 to 1996 and managing partner from 1994 to 1996. Presently the Firm's Director of Associate Development.

Areas of Practice

Litigation, Administrative, Construction, Environmental Law and First Nation Issues

Professional/Business Affiliations

Law Society of British Columbia
Canadian Bar Association
Vancouver Bar Association
Canadian Maritime Law Association

Notable Cases

  • Roberts and Dick et al v. The Queen, (1993) 65 F.T.R. 292, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 204; [1991] 3 F.C. 420, 42 F.T.R. 40, [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 117 (F.C.T.D.)
      In this important decision involving rights to Indian Reserves in British Columbia, Ray was head counsel in successfully defending the Federal Government. The trial ran for more than 80 days in the Federal Court of Canada and dealt with the complicated history of the creation of Indian Reserves in British Columbia from the time of confederation. An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed and a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in December 2002.
  • LaPointe v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (1992), 51 F.T.R. 161, 4 Admin. L.R. (2d) 298 (F.C.T.D.)
      Ray was counsel for Mr. LaPointe in one of the few cases in Canada where punitive damages have been awarded against the Federal Government. The Court decided that the representatives of the Federal Government (The Minister of Fisheries and The Department of Fisheries) had deliberately abused their powers knowing that the actions taken against Mr. LaPointe, in cancelling a number of fishing licences, were without legal authority and awarded punitive damages for the high handed and arrogant conduct of the Defendants.
  • Hardie v. Summerland (District of ) (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 257, 68 B.C.L.R. 244, 11 C.C.E.L. 120, 22 C.R.R. 204 (B.C.S.C.)
      One of the first cases under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where an injunction was granted restraining an employer from forcing an employee to retire because he had reached age 65.