Kaitlyn Meyer recognized in Benchmark Litigation: 40 & Under

Congratulations to Kaitlyn Meyer for being recognized in Benchmark Litigation Canada’s 40 and Under.

This list includes the most notable up and coming litigation attorneys in Canada.

Congratulations to Kaitlyn and all the other lawyers who were selected for this recognition.

Learn more here: Benchmark's 40 and Under Canada 2026 is now live | Benchmark Litigation

Wes McMillan, Alex Mok, and Noah Faust-Robinson secure victory after 10-day trial

Wes McMillan, Alex Mok, and Noah Faust-Robinson successfully secured a liability judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for its failure to restore the plaintiff’s property and pay rent for the non-operational period.

The plaintiff operated a hotel in Duncan, B.C. During the pandemic, it leased the hotel to the defendant so that the defendant could provide temporary shelter for the vulnerable population in the region. The arrangement eventually lasted for almost two years. As a result, the rooms were extensively used, and the property could no longer operate as a hotel.

The trial was split into two phases. In the first phase, the trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and concluded that the defendant failed to restore the property to the required standard and failed to pay rent until the property was functioning again. The parties will appear before the trial judge again to argue the quantum of the claim in the second phase of the proceedings.

The matter spanned a period during which Wes McMillan and Greg Allen each went on sabbatical and assumed conduct of the file at different points to ensure its continued progress. This reflects AMLC’s collaborative and collegial approach to preserving continuity and providing seamless representation on an extended and complex matter.

For the full details on this case, visit: 2026 BCSC 1371. For more information on Allen / McMillan’s commercial litigation practice, please contact Wes (wes@amlc.ca) or Alex (alex@amlc.ca).

Welcome Back, Molly Robson!

AMLC is pleased to welcome Molly Robson back to the team as an articling student.

Molly completed her summer articles at AMLC before graduating from the University of Victoria this spring. We are excited to have her rejoin the team.

Welcome back to the team, Molly!

AMLC Legal Insights - Gift Letters: When is a “Gift” Not Really a Gift?

By Alex Mok

High housing prices and strained household budgets mean that many younger purchasers cannot buy a home without assistance from their parents. To satisfy a lender, the contributing family member may sign a gift letter confirming that the money advanced for the purchase is a genuine gift and that no repayment is expected.

But is the money truly a gift as between the family members themselves? The recent decision in Kirkwood Estate v. Whitefield, 2026 BCSC 1265, suggests that the answer may depend on the surrounding circumstances, not merely on the label used in a document prepared for mortgage financing.

What is a gift letter?

In the mortgage context, the lender will want to confirm that any contribution from a family member of the borrower is not a loan that could affect the borrower’s ability to repay the mortgage. The lender will also want to ensure that the contributing family member will not assert a beneficial interest in the property and compete with the lender in a foreclosure or bankruptcy.

To address these concerns, the lender will usually require the contributing family member to provide a gift letter. A gift letter will typically identify the transferor and recipient, state the amount being advanced, confirm that the funds are being provided as a genuine gift, and expressly say that the recipient is not required or expected to repay the money.

What happened in Kirkwood Estate?

In Kirkwood Estate, a mother advanced funds to help her son purchase a property. She also signed a gift letter stating that the advance was a genuine gift, which assisted her son in obtaining mortgage financing. She later made additional contributions by helping with some of the mortgage payments.

After the son and his ex-spouse separated, the property was sold. The mother’s estate, supported by the son, claimed an entitlement to a share of the sale proceeds corresponding to the mother’s financial contributions to the property. The ex-spouse opposed the claim, relying primarily on the gift letter as evidence that the mother had intended to make a gift. The court found in favour of the estate and held that it was entitled to a proportionate interest in the equity of the property.

The presumption of resulting trust

The general rule is that when a person transfers property or money to another person without receiving consideration, the recipient is presumed to hold that property or money on resulting trust for the transferor. The recipient has the burden to rebut that presumption by adducing evidence and proving that the transferor intended to make a gift.

While a gift letter may appear to show the transferor’s intention to make a gift to the recipient, that is not conclusive evidence of a gift. Equity looks to substance rather than form — the court will consider the context in which the gift letter was prepared and how it fits with the evidence as a whole.

As noted above, a gift letter serves an important but narrow function: it is directed at addressing the lender’s concerns in mortgage financing. In other words, a gift letter does not necessarily determine the private legal relationship between the transferor and recipient.

Clarity matters

Family members often do not carefully document their financial arrangements. Yet ambiguity can be costly. If an advance is not intended as an outright gift, then both the transferor and the recipient should clearly define the nature of the advance at the outset. Is it a loan, giving rise to merely a right of repayment? Or is it intended to give the transferor a beneficial interest in the property itself? Clear documentation at the outset is not only prudent — it is good practice.

Download a PDF copy of AMLC Legal Insights

繁體中文

简体中文

AMLC Legal Insights are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or opinion.

Congratulations to Noah Faust-Robinson

Congratulations to Noah for being called to the bar in British Columbia on June 25, 2026!

Noah obtained his law degree from the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria. He joined our firm as a summer student in 2024 and then returned to the firm in 2025 to complete his articles after graduation. We are excited for Noah to stay on as an associate! 

AMLC Legal Insights - Before You Ask AI: Privilege, Confidentiality, and Waiver in BC

By Alex Mok

Your lawyer gives you legal advice. You trust your lawyer, but you still want to stress-test the advice. So you upload it to an AI platform. The platform identifies a few issues that may not have been addressed. You send those issues back to your lawyer to “perfect” the advice. 

You feel reassured because you have left no stone unturned. Your lawyer may feel differently. Reading your well-paragraphed and carefully formatted email, your lawyer realizes what has happened. The lawyer now has to ask: did uploading the advice to an AI platform waive privilege? And if privilege was waived, could the client be required in litigation to disclose not only that advice, but also related privileged communications?

Privilege, Confidentiality, and Waiver

A lawyer can help clients navigate the complexity of the law and advance their interests only if clients feel they are able to speak candidly with their lawyer in private. Privilege serves that important function; it creates a protected space for open and frank communications between lawyer and client.

The two most common forms of privilege are: (1) solicitor-client privilege which protects confidential communications between lawyer and client made for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice; and (2) litigation privilege which protects communications and documents created for the dominant purpose of existing, contemplated, or reasonably anticipated litigation. 

Communications must be made in confidence and remain confidential in order to be considered privileged, and therefore protected from disclosure. If the confidentiality of legal advice is lost, the client may be found to have waived privilege. The effect of waiver can be more far-reaching than one might expect. In some circumstances, it may affect not only the specific communication disclosed, but also other related communications and advice concerning the same subject matter. 

Risk of waiver with the use of AI

Although it is not binding on BC courts, a recent U.S. decision illustrates the privilege risks that can arise when third-party AI tools are used in connection with legal matters. In United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y.) the defendant used a publicly available generative AI tool to create documents concerning potential defence strategy and legal arguments. The defendant asserted privilege over those AI-generated materials. 

The court rejected the privilege claim. It emphasized that the AI platform was not counsel, was not part of the lawyer-client relationship, and was not acting as counsel’s agent. The court also considered the platform’s terms and privacy practices in assessing whether there was a reasonable expectation that the information would remain confidential. 

It is not necessary, for present purposes, to debate whether Heppner would be decided the same way in British Columbia. The practical point is narrow but important: where privileged information is voluntarily entered into an AI tool, an opposing party may argue that the information has been disclosed to a third party and that privilege has therefore been waived. Whether that argument succeeds will depend on the circumstances, likely including the platform’s terms of use, data retention practices, confidentiality protections, and the purpose and manner of the AI use. The risk should be addressed before the tool is used, not after a privilege challenge arises. 

Practical safeguard for clients and businesses

Before using AI in connection with legal matters, clients and businesses should first consider whether it is appropriate to do so and what steps are necessary to protect confidentiality and privilege. In particular, they should consider the following: 

• Do not input privileged or confidential information into public AI tools. Use anonymized or hypothetical facts where possible, while recognizing that anonymization may not be sufficient if the information still identifies the matter or reveals strategy. 

• Involve and consult counsel before using AI with legal materials, especially where the materials concern legal advice, litigation strategy, investigations, productions, or settlement positions. 

• Review the AI platform’s terms of use, privacy policy, and data controls, including whether prompts and outputs may be stored, reviewed, used for training, or disclosed. 

• Use approved or enterprise-grade tools where available, particularly tools with appropriate confidentiality settings, no-training controls, and administrative safeguards.

Download a PDF copy of AMLC Legal Insights

繁體中文

简体中文

AMLC Legal Insights are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or opinion.