Anastase Maragos | Watson Goepel LLP

Anastase E. Maragos* Partner

“The goal of our personal injury team is to ensure our clients get the best medical care and the compensation they deserve.”

Anastase is a Partner in the Personal Injury Group at Watson Goepel LLP. With over 25 years of experience in the area of personal injury law, he has acted for thousands of injured parties at all levels of court in British Columbia. Anastase has a deep understanding of BC’s complex medical legal system, and has comprehensive trial experience.

Anastase grew up in Gibsons, BC and still considers it his home away from home.



LLB, University of British Columbia, 1990


British Columbia, 1991


I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Anastase Maragos and his team for their great job in processing my MVA claim. Never did I ever feel like I was fighting my case alone, as they were always there to give support and encouragement. I would highly recommend this law firm for anyone who’s under similar circumstances as mine and also for anyone who feels like they are in need of professional assistance regarding their case.JE
I'd like to commend Anastase and his staff on their etiquette, compassion, and professionalism which made them a pleasure to work with. I felt very well taken care of and was pleased with the settlement. Thank you so much!CS
Anastase and his team are were amazing. They provided great support as well as being honest, reliable, and professional. I would highly recommend Anastase and his team.LM

Work Highlights


Marshall v. Dyson, 2020 BCSC 2052

Award: $1,450,950

The plaintiff, in this case, was an active young woman in her early twenties who was injured in a series of three accidents. She was working as a chef in the remote catering industry at fishing lodges and work camps when the first accident occurred.

As a result of the first accident, she suffered from significant physical injuries, which limited her abilities to engage in domestic chores and recreational activities, and kept her from returning to work. The plaintiff attempted to return to work in the remote catering industry but found the work very difficult and ultimately could not continue.

As a result of her limitations, she enrolled in university to attempt to retrain. In the years that followed the plaintiff was involved in two other significant accidents which caused additional physical symptoms including debilitating headaches. When the matter proceeded to trial 6 years after the first accident, the plaintiff continued to struggle with her injuries and has not yet completed a four-year degree program due to her struggles.

At trial, the defense argued that the plaintiff was capable of working in the future, though not in the remote catering industry. It was argued that her future earnings should be compared with the average earnings of a cook or chef in a restaurant, which were far below the average earnings of those in the remote catering industry.

The defense argued that the plaintiff should only receive compensation for future wage loss reflective of two years of her pre-accident earnings, or about $100,000. We presented evidence demonstrating the high wages in the remote catering industry, and how difficult this work is physically. We also presented evidence regarding the plaintiff’s struggle with school studies and her periodic attempts at working full time, in her new field of Human Resources.

At trial, we were successful in arguing that the plaintiff’s past and future loss of wages be assessed much higher than that argued by the defense. Ultimately the award for past and future wage loss was $1,180,000.

Patterson v. Solymosi, 2019 BCSC 1508

Award: $250,000

The plaintiff, in this case, was an active mother and worked as a teacher on call prior to the accident. She was involved in a rear-end accident and complained of a number of injuries. She had a pre-existing injury that she was worried about aggravating. She attended with her family doctor and various treatment providers for a number of injuries. In the months after the accident, as she recovered from the majority of her complaints and attempted to resume her regular activities, she began experiencing increased and intense pain in her hip. The hip pain impacted her ability to work full time, participate in recreational activities and participate fully in her domestic chores. When the matter proceeded to trial, causation of the hip complaints was the primary issue. The defense argued that the ongoing hip complaints were not caused by the accident. We were successful in arguing that the accident was the cause of the ongoing hip issues and that this was impacting her ability to earn an income into the future.


Miller v. Resurreccion, 2019 BCSC 2066

Award $440,057

The Plaintiff was a valued employee at a community services organization when she was injured in a car accident. The Defendant took the position that her previous struggles with depression and non-accident related traumatic events were the true cause of her symptoms. We successfully proved that the plaintiff’s losses were directly attributable to the accident. Based on the evidence, we established that the accident resulted in injuries that permanently impacted the plaintiff, making her unlikely to return to her pre-accident state. Ultimately, the court’s award vastly surpassed the amounts advanced by the defence, and included both loss of earning capacity and the cost of future care.

Bains v. Gret’s Projects Inc., 2017 BCSC 1530

Award $600,000

The Plaintiff was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision when she was 27 years old. Prior to the accident, while attaining her Bachelors degree at SFU, she had developed an interest in law enforcement. We successfully argued that the Plaintiff would have attained a job with the Canada Border Services if not for her injuries. Future loss of earning capacity made up a substantial portion of the total award, which also included future care costs for fitness equipment and vocational counseling.

Ratelle v. Barton, 2017 BCSC 1262  
A groundbreaking decision wherein the plaintiff in the case overtook a vehicle that suddenly turned in front of a motorcyclist on the Whistler highway. The court held the defendant entirely responsible.

Ranahan v. Iron Horse Enterprises & Logistics Inc., 2017 BCSC 759  
Award $880,000. The plaintiff was injured in a serious motorcycle accident. The plaintiff had worked as a logger for almost 40 years and had suffered a severe blunt injury to the chest amongst numerous other injuries.
The claim sought to quantify the lost earnings of a self-employed logger. His earnings post-accident at times exceeded his pre-accident earnings.  Notwithstanding, we were successful in proving substantial past and future wage loss damages.

Payne v. Miles, 2013 BCSC 1545  
Award $1.630 Million.
The plaintiff, a young female, was brain injured at the age of 17 as a result of a motor vehicle accident. As is typical in brain injury cases, it takes time to determine the full extent and particular nature of any resulting disabilities. Further, people can continue to look and speak normally while still suffering various types of cognitive impairments. In this case,  it took over 6 years before the full nature of the plaintiff’s injuries were known and the long term compensation needs could be properly assessed, at which time the matter went to trial. In this case, we were able to establish the estimated loss of income and the amount of support required to live a fulfilling life. The Award included childcare costs, career counseling, and loss of past and future income.

Peers v. Bodkin Leasing Corporation, 2012 BCSC 271 
Award $560,000.
The plaintiff, a 56-year-old man, was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to the accident, he worked as a boom operator in the logging industry. Initial assessments indicated that his injuries were minor. After we encouraged a referral to a medical-legal expert, and a private MRI, it was revealed that there were previously undiagnosed and permanent career-ending injuries to his spinal cord. This claim primarily consisted of loss of income and loss of Pension, as the accident rendered the Plaintiff essentially unemployable.

Milliken v. Rowe, 2011 BCSC 1458  
Award $230,000.
Injured in a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff worked full-time as the manager of a pizzeria while caring for her wheelchair-bound husband and teenage daughter. Her employer made numerous accommodations to keep her employed despite a serious shoulder injury. Even though she continued to work full-time, we successfully claimed for the loss of capacity to earn income. We also pursued a claim for the reduction in her ability to care for her home and husband.

Kasidoulis v. Russo, 2010 BCSC 978 
Award $1.050 million.
The plaintiff, a recent education graduate, had gained an excellent reputation as a kindergarten teacher in her school and in the district, prior to a motor vehicle accident. Her dream was to work full-time in her own classroom.  The defendant took the position that a mother of three was not likely to work full-time. We proved that the plaintiff’s career goals were fully compatible with her responsibilities as a parent, and well within her reach based on her training and teaching ability. Further, we proved that the plaintiff lost the opportunity to fulfill her dream as a result of the accident, and we were able to help her recover the full amount of her financial loss.

Publications and Presentations

  • Selected as a speaker in numerous continuing Legal Education courses

* Practicing through a Professional Law Corporation.

Recent news from Anastase E. Maragos

A winding country road near Roseburg Oregon

2 December 2019

Dube v Dube: A Personal Injury Case Study

Dube v Dube, 2019 BCSC 687 On May 2, 2019, the Court released its reasons for judgment in Dube v Dube, 2019 BCSC 687.  The 12-day trial began on October 15, 2018, with counsel provided by partners Anastase Maragos and Janet De Vita of Watson Goepel LLP. This case illustrates how ICBC may attempt to…

Read more
View All Posts from Anastase E. Maragos