Nojan Kamoosi
ASSOCIATE
A voracious problem solver, Nojan cannot rest until he finds a solution to your legal issue. Being the annoyingly punctual type who arrives early to parties, Nojan does his best to deliver results ahead of schedule.
Nojan has a broad civil litigation practice focused on real estate claims, municipal law, contractual disputes of all sorts and negligence claims. Prior to joining Allen/McMillan, he articled at a large international law firm and practiced at a Vancouver litigation boutique where he gained experience in all aspects of civil disputes. He has appeared in all levels of court in British Columbia as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.
A long-time Vancouverite, Nojan loves exploring the outdoors and seeing all that BC has to offer. When he is not hiking, he is writing and performing songs on his acoustic guitar or proving that he is a true cinephile by watching pretentious art house films.
Education
JD (UVic, 2017)
Called to the bar of British Columbia (2018)
Recognition
Significant Cases
Bajwa v Bajwa, 2024 BCSC 1428: represented the parents of a spouse in a family law dispute, where a claimant was seeking an interest in the parents’ real property.
1155204 B.C. Ltd. v NV Highway Properties Ltd., 2024 BCSC 248: represented the purchasers in a failed real estate transaction that was converted to a share purchase.
British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27: represented an intervenor non-profit organization in an appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the scope of public interest standing in constitutional challenges.
Chhina v Rebecca L. Darnell Law Corporation, 2021 BCCA 430: represented the respondent lawyers in an appeal, concerning (in part) the interpretation of a contract for the sale of a law firm.
Grosz v Royal Trust Corporation Of Canada, 2020 BCSC 128: represented realtors in an application to strike claims of fraud and conspiracy, on the grounds that the claims were time barred under the Limitation Act, disclosed no reasonable claims, were vexatious and constituted an abuse of process.
