About Talan H. Suleyman

Talan H. Suleyman, B.A., J.D.

Litigation Associate
Talan H. Suleyman is an associate lawyer at Magnus Law, practicing predominantly in the area of civil litigation. Talan has represented clients in both the Provincial and Supreme Court of British Columbia. His practice is wide-ranging and has included claims related to real estate, estate litigation, contract disputes, corporate and shareholder disputes, construction and builder’s lien claims and personal injury matters. Talan has independently represented clients at trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Talan is a fierce advocate of his clients’ interests. His approach is tailored to the facts of each claim and he often looks for an amicable resolution without the need for litigation when possible. Talan obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Simon Fraser University in 2013. He then travelled abroad and obtained his Law Degree from Bond University with a First Class Distinction designation in 2017.

When Talan is not practicing law, he enjoys riding his motorcycle, golfing, fishing, playing football and watching all kinds of sports. Talan Suleyman speaks English and Kurdish

Published Cases

Pasternak v. Morden, 2022 BCSC 433

This case related to a contract for the purchase of a residential property in Maple Ridge. Talan H. Suleyman was successful in pursuing the Defendant for failing to complete on the purchase of the Property. The Defendant in this case caused their deposit cheque to bounce by leaving insufficient funds in their bank account to satisfy the amount of the deposit. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs were forced to sell their home for a lower amount so that they could continue with the purchase of a different property. After a trial of the matter, the court awarded the Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $97,800, which represented the difference in the price that the Defendants agreed to pay and the final price the Property was sold for.

Pooni v. Storsley, 2022 BCSC 1011

Talan H. Suleyman represented the Defendants in this matter. It was alleged that the Defendant had agreed to sell their house to two separate parties, which may have entitled one party to the Property and the other party to damages for breach of contract. However, Mr. Suleyman was successful in arguing that the second agreement was never a binding contract between the parties because the subject clauses in the agreement were too subjective in that it provided the buyer with a way out of the agreement in the event that they simply chose not to proceed with the purchase. The court agreed and found that the second contract was never formed and the case against the Defendants was dismissed.