Myron Plett - Spectrum Family Law

Myron Plett

FAMILY LAWYER, VANCOUVER

1-877-402-1004 (Vancouver Toll-Free)

About Myron Plett

Myron is a seasoned litigator with nearly twenty years of experience and a broad range of skills that has led to significant successes in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He has also taken his clients to victory before tribunals such as the Residential Tenancy Branch and the BC Human Rights Tribunal. His wealth of knowledge and varied skills allows him to easily traverse such widely disparate areas of law as:

  • Family law
  • Wills and estates
  • Contracts and leases
  • Real estate
  • Criminal law; and,
  • Corporate / commercial transactions

Myron is not a one-size-fits-all lawyer. He adapts his approach with each client to meet them at their point of need, always looking for an efficient resolution. As much as he relishes every opportunity to step into a courtroom, he frequently achieves success in mediation or by other methods of alternative dispute resolution, saving his client unnecessary expense, delay, and uncertainty.

Passions and Achievements

Myron loves getting in front of a judge, but before becoming a lawyer, Myron spent years performing classical piano, conducting, in musical theatre and teaching. His performances have been recorded and broadcast by the CBC and he has collaborated with choirs, modern dance companies and performed in numerous musical theatre productions in Vancouver and Victoria.

Myron decided to apply his experiences in the high-stakes pressure of public performance in the practice of law and, after being called to the bar in British Columbia in 2008, began his career on the toughest stage: the courtroom.

Notable Outcomes

Schneider v. Owers, 2026 BCSC 1230

  • In this high-conflict family law dispute, Myron secured a rare and exceptional remedy for his client: an award of special costs. Although a final order had been rendered back in 2019, the litigation required numerous further steps, and Myron was retained years into the process. On his application, Justice Armstrong agreed that the opposing party’s conduct warranted the Court’s admonition and awarded special costs — providing the client with 60% indemnification of fees accumulated over more than a decade of litigation totalling over $400,000. The Court struck a careful balance, ensuring the award served its punitive purpose without dramatically reapportioning family property.
  • This decision is notable not only because special costs are difficult to obtain, but also because it required the Court to sift through a lengthy history of decisions, group them into broader categories, and assess their relative importance. For prospective clients, this case demonstrates Myron’s commitment to seeing a matter through to its final resolution — even after a favourable trial result, he remains focused on maximizing the client’s outcome, right down to the costs award.

Stainer v Thurgood is 2026 BCSC 326

  • In this wills variation matter, Myron successfully defeated a summary dismissal application brought against his client, preserving her right to a full trial on a novel and evolving area of estates law. The deceased had raised Myron’s client as his daughter throughout her life — placing his name on her birth certificate, financing her education, and treating her children as his grandchildren — yet she was neither his biological nor formally adopted child. The executors sought to have her wills variation claim struck on the basis that Court of Appeal authority in Hope and Peri limits the definition of “child” under s. 60 of WESA to biological or adopted children.
  • Myron persuaded the Court that shifting societal norms around family, parenting, and the nature of parent-child relationships provide the “compelling factual foundation” the Court of Appeal in Peri expressly left open for reconsideration. The Court agreed that whether his client’s circumstances warrant expanding the legal definition of “child” cannot be decided summarily and must proceed to trial.
  • This decision demonstrates Myron’s willingness to take on difficult cases at the frontier of the law and to advance thoughtful, principled arguments that give clients a genuine opportunity to be heard — even where existing precedent appears to stand in the way.

Lukas v Lemos, 2025 BCSC 1658

  • A case involving orders from courts in other countries and the then-brand-new Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Dunmore v. Mehralian. Myron expertly and successfully guided his client through tricky jurisdictional issues that can arise when people from outside Canada struggle with how to exercise their responsibilities here.

Chilton v. McDowell, 2016 BCSC 2203

  • This tricky case regarding common law couples required that Myron convince the court that times have moved on from the days where a marriage-like relationship only started when parties moved in together and combined all their finances. Using a broad range of markers, Myron showed that the marriage-like relationship between the parties was a product of a number of factors which, when taken together, neutralized the arbitrary start date of a tenancy.
  • https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2203/2016bcsc2203.html

S.N. v. E.C., 2014 BCPC  82

  • When can a mother relocate with her children to a new home? This perennial question took on a whole new direction after the Family Law Act was brought into force in 2013. Myron helped his client navigate the complicated formulas that were implemented in this legislation, helping his client get permission to move her two children to a new life and new opportunities.
  • https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2014/2014bcpc82/2014bcpc82.html

Skene v. Ucluelet (District), 2019 BCSC 2051

  • Myron championed the rights of two property owners in the District of Ucluelet who were being told that they had to give up parts of their land to a right-of-way for a boardwalk for which construction had not been started. He argued, successfully, that the right-of-way lacked certainty and then convinced the court that it should exercise its discretion to cancel the right-of-way.
  • https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc2051/2019bcsc2051.html