ICBC Law

I’ve written about this topic before and below I reproduce my previous post on Injury Lawyers working both sides of the fence.  I’m doing this because  I have been approached by a number of people who recently found out that their lawyer also acts on ICBC’s behalf in other Injury Claims.  These individuals apparently were not told this when they first retained their lawyers and their displeasure in learning this after the fact is understandable.

Before reproducing my previous post, however, I’d like to share my usual advice when people are confronted with this situation.  If you hired a capable lawyer who is doing a good job for you try to work things out.  The reason being is that if you hire a second lawyer you will have to pay a second lawyer.  If the lawyer’s failure to disclose this potential conflict of interest is a deal breaker then so be it, however, if it isn’t and the lawyer is doing an otherwise decent job save yourself the extra legal fees that come with hiring a new lawyer.  While I certainly don’t condone this lack of candor (and in case you’re wondering, No I don’t act for ICBC) it is important to keep focused on the big picture which is whether your lawyer is doing a good job.

With that out of the way, here is my previous post on this issue:

You’ve been injured in an accident. You don’t feel comfortable with how things have progressed with ICBC in your settlement negotiations so you decide to hire a lawyer. You find a qualified ICBC claims lawyer and off you go. You assume, reasonably so, that the lawyer is acting for you and not ICBC, right? Not always…

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court confirming that strict adherence to the requirements of Rule 37B are necessary for a pre-trial settlement offer to trigger costs consequences. In this week’s case (Wormell v. Hagen) the Third Party to the lawsuit made a pre trial offer stating “the Third Party offers to settle the Defendant’s claim(s) for any contribution or relief from the Third Party in this proceeding on the following terms: Dismissal of the Third Party Notice; and costs in accordance with Rule 37(22) and (37)”

After trial the Defendant’s claims against the third party were dismissed.  The Third Party brought an application for double costs under Rule 37B as they beat their pre-trial settlement offer.  Mr. Justice Goepel refused to order double costs holding that the pre-trial settlement offer did not comply with the strict requirements of Rule 37B thereby giving the Court no authority under the Rule.

Mr. Justice Goepel reasoned as follows:

[5] Rule 37 was repealed by B.C. Reg. 130/2008, effective July 1, 2008.  At that time Rule 37 was replaced by Rule 37(b) which provides that:

37B(1) In this rule, “offer to settle” means

(a)      an offer to settle made and delivered before July 2, 2008 under Rule 37, as that rule read on the date of the offer to settle, and in relation to which no order was made under that rule,

(b)      an offer of settlement made and delivered before July 2, 2008 under Rule 37A, as that rule read on the date of the offer of settlement, and in relation to which no order was made under that rule, or

(c)      an offer to settle, made after July 1, 2008, that

(i)         is made in writing by a party to a proceeding,

(ii)        has been delivered to all parties of record, and

(iii)       contains that following sentence: “The … [name of the party making the offer]… reserves the right to bring this offer to the attention of the court for consideration in relation to costs after the court has rendered judgment on all other issues in this proceeding.” [B.C. Reg. 130/2008, s. 1]

[6] The offer served by Mr. Moses on the defendant does not contain the wording required in Rule 37B(1)(c)(iii)…

[7] In Lau v. Rai, 2009 BCSC 696, Powers J. considered the effect of a non-compliant offer and held that a non-compliant offer did not constitute an “offer to settle” as defined under Rule 37B.

[8] I agree with Powers J.’s conclusion.  “Offer to settle” is a defined term.  A proposal concerning costs made subsequent to July 1, 2008 that does not comply with the provisions of Rule 37B(1)(c) is not an “offer to settle” as defined in the Rules and does not trigger the cost options set out in Rule 37B(5).

[9] In the result, therefore, the third party’s application for double costs is dismissed.  I confirm the cost order set out in para. 144 of my initial reasons.  The defendant is entitled to the cost of this application to be set off against the costs otherwise awarded to the third parties.  As the third parties were both represented by the same counsel at trial and took the same positions with respect to defending the third party claim the third parties are collectively only entitled to one set of costs:  Malik v. State Petroleum Corp., 2009 BCSC 115.

Reasons for judgement were published today on the BC Supreme Court website dealing with the scope of permissible neuropsychological opinion evidence in BC Brain Injury Cases.

When ICBC or other BC brain injury cases go to trial a neuropsychologist is a common type of expert witness called by both Plaintiff and Defence Lawyers.  Neuropsychologists are extensively trained with respect to the cognitive and behavioural consequences of brain injuries and for this reason their evidence is often vital in the prosecution of brain injury claims.

In today’s case (Meghji v. Lee) the Plaintiff alleged she suffered a traumatic brain injury.  In support of her case the Plaintiff sought to have a neuropsychologist give opinion evidence with respect to the cognitive and behavioural sequelae of brain injuries and also with respect to whether the Plaintiff suffered from organic tissue to her brain.  The Defence lawyer objected claiming the latter opinion is outside of the scope of a neuropsycholgists permissible expert opinion.  Mr. Justice Johnston agreed with the defence objection and summarized and applied the law as follows:

[27] Counsel for the plaintiff wants Dr. Malcolm to be permitted to give an opinion on whether Ms. Meghji has had an injury to her brain. I looked briefly at Dr. Malcolm’s written reports, and in his first report, the one of February 1, 2007, Dr. Malcolm provides an overview of the place of psychometric testing in his overall task in this way. He says:

Once the test results are determined to reflect the person’s neuropsychological status with acceptable accuracy, the question remains as to whether clinically significant test results reflect organic damage, or stem from other factors, such as psychological causes. The neuropsychological process considers all of these possibilities in reaching diagnostic conclusions. The conclusions reached are based on a balance of probability, the strength of which is indicated where possible.

[28] At the risk of appearing to be overly semantic about this analysis, I take it that what counsel want Dr. Malcolm to be able to do is to testify by way of opinion about whether or not there has been some form of harm or damage to the tissues of the brain of Ms. Meghji as opposed to some form of harm or damage to the mind or emotions or personality of Ms. Meghji. Whether there is a distinction between the brain as an organ of the body, on the one hand, and the mind and personality of the person in whose body the brain is found, on the other, is a metaphysical question that I hope I never have to answer in a court of law. I am going to confine myself to what I think is in issue, and that is Dr. Malcolm’s qualifications as a neuropsychological and whether they permit him to provide the ready-made inference through opinion on whether there has been physical harm or damage to the brain as an organ of the body, and in my view, they do not.

[29] The statutory regime does not, in my view, go any further than to allow testing, assessment, diagnosis of, and therefore opinions on the abilities, aptitudes, interests, et cetera, or the behaviour, emotional, or mental disorders, that is, disorders of the mind. These conditions may arise with or without damage to the structure or tissues of the brain. They may be associated with or flow from injury or damage to the brain itself. They may arise from or flow from other causes. It does not necessarily follow that because Dr. Malcolm is permitted by statute to test, assess, or diagnose behavioural, emotional, or mental disorder that he must therefore be permitted to give in evidence his opinion that the cause of any of these conditions stems from an injury to the tissues or structures of the brain.

[30] In my view, Dr. Malcolm’s qualifications do not go so far as to permit that opinion.

[31] That does not say that Dr. Malcolm cannot give, in evidence, his opinion based upon the results of his testing, nor does it prevent Dr. Malcolm from giving an opinion on whether the test results as evaluated by him are of a nature, kind, or quality seen in people who have been diagnosed as having had organic brain injuries.

[32] In my view, the distinction drawn by Mr. Justice Clancy in Knight remains appropriate, and that is, Dr. Malcolm is qualified to give his opinion on the cognitive and behavioural sequelae of brain injuries and to indicate the relative likelihood of any cognitive and behavioural abnormalities being the consequence of a traumatic brain injury, but to paraphrase Mr. Justice Clancy, it does not permit him, that is, Dr. Malcolm, to diagnose physical injury and the manner in which it was incurred.

[33] It therefore follows that Dr. Malcolm will not be permitted to give his opinion on whether Ms. Meghji has had an injury to the tissues of her brain or, obviously, as to the cause of any such injury, but he will be permitted to testify as I have indicated.

Reasons for judgement were released today (Lutz v. Lim) awarding a Plaintiff just over $64,000 in total damages as a result of 2 BC motor vehicle collisions.

Fault was admitted for both crashes leaving the court to deal with the issue of damages.  The Plaintiff suffered a complicated soft tissue injury to his right foot as a result of the first crash.  The Plaintiff’s doctors gave the following opinion with respect to the Plaintiff’s foot injury:

In summary, Mr. Lutz continues to experience significant pain in his right foot, in spite of orthotics and custom-made workboots. He is able to function at work but finds that, after he has been on his feet for more than two hours at a time, the pain in his foot increases. I believe he has a permanent partial disability as a result of the initial motor vehicle accident of April 26th, 2005, when a car ran over his right foot….

Because of the change of foot position, the increased metatarsalgia, and the swelling that occurred around the time of the accident, I think that the accident has given him significant change in his foot shape and deterioration in his foot function as it existed prior to this point.

I think, with regard to the future, he will require custom orthotics and shoes to maintain his employment…

I also think that this would help him improve his recreational activities.

I think that there will be ongoing disability from this injury. He is unlikely to be able to take employment that requires a greater degree of loading of the forefoot than he presently has. His job is well-suited to his various musculoskeletal injuries, but if he has to take part in a job that requires a greater degree of physical activity, I suspect that his foot will become the most rate-limiting area. Therefore, a job more strenuous than he presently has would be inappropriate unless further reconstructive surgery was done to his foot.

In awarding the Plaintiff $45,000 for his non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for his foot injury Mr. Justice Verhoeven summarized the severity of the injury and the effects on the Plaintiff’s life as follows:

[101] Doing the best I can on the evidence, I conclude that the plaintiff has suffered a substantial amount of damage to his foot in the MVA. I conclude, as well, that the MVA has caused a permanent disability in his foot. I conclude that the risk of surgery being required is caused by the MVA injuries. On the evidence, I am unable to find that there was a measurable risk of surgery being required prior to the MVA injuries….

[110] In my view, and adopting the language used by Major J. in Athey v. Leonati, the plaintiff’s foot injury is more in the nature of a “thin skull” case than it is of a “crumbling skull”. The plaintiff’s prior foot injury left him vulnerable to future injury. There is little more than speculation to suggest that his current complaints and his ongoing need for treatment would have or might have occurred in any event. There is therefore insufficient evidence to allow me to reduce the award based upon such a contingency…

[124] In summary, the plaintiff now has had foot pain steadily for the past four-and-a-half years. He has a permanent partial disability with ongoing discomfort in relation to the foot. There is some restriction on his work activities, although he has not made a claim for loss of earnings or earning capacity. He was 38 years of age at the time of the first MVA. He is now 42. There is a significant risk of surgery being required as a result of the accident injury. Although he has not lost any time from work and for the most part he has carried on with his pre-MVA activities, I take into account his stoical nature. He has had to wear orthotics in his footwear and this will continue indefinitely. He suffered a minor injury to the right hand as well.

[125] I accept the submission of plaintiff’s counsel that an appropriate compensation for non-pecuniary loss arising out of MVA No. 1 is $45,000.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding just under $50,000 in total damages for injuries and loss from a 1999 motor vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Foo v. Masardijian) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end crash on April 27, 1999.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.  The trial involved an assessment of damages.

The Plaintiff represented himself.  He was seeking “an award of one-half to one million dollars“.  He sought this figure apparently on the basis that his accident related injuries were ongoing by the time of trial.  This was rejected by the Court which held that some of the Plaintiff’s perceptions about his injuries were “completely mistaken“.

Madam Justice Baker had issues with respect to the Plaintiff’s reliability as a witness as he testified to a series of post accident events which were “sufficiently bizarre and inherently improbably to cast doubt on the accuracy of (the Plaintiff’s) perceptions.”

Ultimately Madam Justice Baker awarded the Plaintiff $18,000 for past loss of income and $30,000 for his non-pecuniary damages.  In justifying this figure the Court summarize the Plaintiff’s accident related injuries as follows:

54] Mr. Foo did experience pain and discomfort, particularly in the first 18 months following the accident and some intermittent neck and lower back pain after that time.  Although I am not persuaded that the disability perceived by Mr. Foo after September 2000 can fairly be attributed to the accident injuries, Mr. Foo did experience discomfort and some degree of disability for a period of about 18 months with some lingering intermittent symptoms after that time.

[55] It does not appear that Mr. Foo engaged in many recreational activities before the motor vehicle accident as he was working 7 days a week in his restaurant.  He did testify that driving long distances caused some discomfort and this applied to driving to Seattle on some Saturday afternoons to attend a Buddhist temple there.  Mr. Foo eventually began attending a temple in the Lower Mainland where he now volunteers at least one day a week as a cook.

[56] This case does have some unique aspects, as Mr. Foo has developed certain perceptions about his injuries and about certain treatment he has received that I am persuaded are completely mistaken.  I am not satisfied that the defendant can be held to be responsible for these mistaken perceptions and therefore include no compensation for the injuries or slights Mr. Foo believes were visited upon him by the defendant’s insurer.

[57] Considering all of the circumstances, I award Mr. Foo the sum of $30,000 for damages for pain, discomfort and loss of enjoyment of life.

Further to my previous posts on this topic reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry discussing the mandatory nature of Rule 68,

Although previous cases have addressed this point, today’s case is important because it is the first such case that I am aware of from a BC Supreme Court Judge (the previous cases were decisions of Masters).

In today’s case (Berenjian v. Primus) the Plaintiff sued for injuries as a  result of a BC Car Crash.  The claim was set for trial in December, 2009.  The Defendants set the matter for Jury Trial.  The Plaintiff then brought a m motion to move the case into Rule 68 which would have the effect, amongst others, of eliminating the possibility of trial by Jury.

The Plaintiff pointed to the fact that this case was worth less than $100,000 and argued that Rule 68 was mandatory.  The Defendants opposed the motion.  After hearing submissions Mr. Justice Punnett agreed with the Plaintiff and held as follows:

[22] Subrule (9) contemplates an action becoming an expedited action after it has been commenced…

[35] I do not agree that Rule 68 cannot be invoked once the pleadings are closed. If the rule is mandatory then the logic of Rule 68(7) is consistent. That is, the rule is a mandatory rule and, as such, no provision is required for the court to order that the rule does apply to a particular action. However, because it is mandatory, a provision was needed to remove actions from the rule.  The absence of the endorsement is simply an irregularity in actions which meet the criteria of Rule 68(2).

[36]         In my view Rule 68 places no time limit for it to be brought into play…

[45]         As noted above the principal of proportionality pervades Rule 68. Rule 68(13) requires that “[i]n considering any application under this rule, the court must consider what is reasonable in relation to the amount at issue in the action” (emphasis added).

[46]         As in Uribe, a jury trial is pending. Given the amount involved (and the defendants do not allege that the claim is worth an amount over $100,000), I am of the opinion that the matter should proceed under Rule 68. It is not reasonable that a claim in the range of $25,000 should proceed to a jury trial for the reasons noted earlier in Uribe. To do so would defeat the purpose of Rule 68.

[47]         Neither party has brought an application under Rule 68(7) for an order that Rule 68 does not apply. The plaintiff seeks an order transferring the proceeding to Rule 68. The defendants oppose that application. Given the mandatory nature of Rule 68, the question of whose obligation it is to bring the action formally under the rule raises an interesting issue that may well have relevance to any claim for costs arising from the late date of this application.

[48]         The plaintiff’s application is granted. There will be an order allowing for the the style of cause to be amended to read “Subject to Rule 68″. The trial currently set for December 7, 2009, shall proceed under Rule 68 without a jury. The plaintiff has tendered two expert reports pursuant to Rule 40A and the defendants one expert report. The parties have leave to call a total of three expert witnesses, namely  Dr. Wright, Dr. Mamacos and Dr. Leith.

This interpretation will likely remain good law under the New BC Supreme Court Rule 15 (the fast track rule which comes into force on July 1, 2010) as it also incorporates principles of proportionality, has the same mandatory tone of language and contemplates actions commenced outside of the fast track be brought into the fast track by filing :”a notice of fast track action” as contemplated by Rule 15-1(2).

(Update: December 14, 2011 - the below decision was modified somewhat by the BC Court of Appeal in reasons for judgement released today)

____________________________________

Precedents with respect to costs consequences under Rule 37B are still developing as this rule is slowly being molded into place.  The one clear pattern under Rule 37B is that of varying results which is a welcome relief from the strict and sometimes harsh costs results that flowed to litigants who could not beat a formal offer under the old Rule 37.

Today, reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing the purpose of Rule 37B in Personal Injury Litigation.

In today’s case (Fan v. Chana) the Plaintiff sued as a result of alleged disability flowing from a motor vehicle collision which occurred in 2000.  The Plaintiff’s claims were largely rejected at trial with Mr. Justice McEwan finding that the crash caused nothing more than an “unexceptional soft-tissue injury” and that the litigaiton was “driven largely by parents…and a series of medical interventions premised on their representations, which were significantly at odds with certain basic information“.  In the end Mr. Justice McEwan awarded the Plaintiff just over $31,000 in damages.  (click here to read my blog post on the trial judgement)

Before trial the Defendant made a formal offer of $75,000 plus costs.  Since the Defendant beat their formal offer they brought an application for costs under Rule 37B.  Illustrating just how expensive personal injury litigation can be the Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements totaled over $85,000 and the Defendants totaled over $43,000.

In making a rather conventional award giving the Plaintiff most of her costs and disbursements up to the time of the formal offer and awarding the Defendant their costs and the disbursements from the time of the offer forward Mr. Justice McEwan made the following useful observations about Rule 37B:

[14] I agree that it is very difficult to see how the plaintiff’s guardian ad litem could have accepted the offer given the medical evidence at hand.  I doubt that the public trustee would have considered it prudent.  Nor do I see how a pre-trial judge could have made a sensible suggestion without hearing the evidence.

[15] The circumstances of this case illuminate a difficulty that arises with some kinds of personal injury cases.  Those with evident injuries and predictable consequences can usually be located within a range that allows for informed discussion.  Some soft tissue injuries, however, sometimes take a course that includes poorly founded medical opinions that seem to verify claimants’ beliefs that they have been seriously harmed.

[16] I have observed in other cases that it is not part of doctors’ function to cross-examine their patients.  On the other hand, I do not think it asks too much of medical professionals who know their reports are going to be used in forensic contexts, that matters that can be verified by objective evidence be verified.  The cogency of medical reports erodes pretty quickly when, for example, someone who plays on the school basketball team is otherwise described as seriously limited in his or her physical capacities.  There were several examples of such difficulties in this case.

[17] It is disturbing to find that a matter has come to trial on a costly series of opinions, founded on premises that a rudimentary effort at fact checking would reveal to be dubious.  It is not asking experts to trespass the fact-finding responsibilities of the court to ask that they take some responsibility for the soundness of the premises on which they proceed.  It may be that disbursements for such reports ought to be more carefully scrutinized for value, when bills of costs are taxed.

[18] Rule 37B is relatively recent.  I do not say new, because it amounts to a restoration of a broad discretion which had been curtailed by a series of rules amendments, the last of which occurred in 1999.  Even then, the court retained its inherent jurisdiction until that was essentially eliminated with respect to costs by appellate rulings (see: Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton, 2005 BCCA 33, 37 B.C.L.R. (4th) 62; Bedwell v. McGill, 2008 BCCA 526. The results were sometimes hard on parties who had guessed wrongly about their claims. The recent history of the costs rule is briefly, and helpfully, set out by Goepel J., in A.E. v. D.W.J., 2009 BCSC 505.

[19] The reintroduction of judicial discretion in costs certainly serves the ends of justice. Costs should be a penalty for unreasonable conduct in the litigation, not a penalty for failing to guess the outcome. In this regard, Courts must, I think, extend some leeway to litigants holding honest but, ultimately, mistaken views of their claims. It is generally better that such expectations be disposed of at law, rather than discouraged.  The public should not be given the impression that there is no reasonable access to a legal resolution.  It must be recognized that some people will only be comfortable if they “hear it from the judge.” This should be a valid option for those who seek it, not a form of deemed unreasonableness.  As such, inducements to settle, and to avail oneself of alternate dispute resolution, ought to complement rather than obstruct judicial determinations…

[21] The obstacle to the acceptance of a reasonable settlement offer in this case was clearly a belief that, by the alchemy of endorsement by experts, a set of facts that was or should have been assessed as dubious would be accepted by the trier of fact.

[22] These factual weaknesses should have been evident by the time the offer was made, but by then, a great deal had been invested in medical and other reports.  It seems likely that that investment contributed to an unreal expectation on the part of the plaintiff’s guardian.

[23] I am of the view that the fairest disposition of costs in the circumstances is to allow the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements to the date of the offer, and the defendant, its costs and disbursements thereafter, with the exception that I would disallow from the plaintiff’s disbursements the reports of Dr. Hahn, and the disallowed report of Dr. Kuttner.  Dr. Kuttner’s report was not proper opinion evidence.  Dr. Hahn’s reports should not be disbursements that the defendants should pay either before or after the tender of the offer to settle.

If you are involved in 2 separate car accidents and start 2 separate Injury Claims in the BC Supreme Court is it possible to have the trials heard at the same time?

The answer is yes and such applications are governed by BC Supreme Court Rule 5(8) which states that “proceedings may be consolidated at any time by order of the court or may be ordered to be tried at the same time or on the same day“.

Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court (Miclash v. Yan) considering an application under Rule 5(8).  In granting the Plaintiff’s request to have multiple claims heard at the same time Master Keighley concisely set out the principles to be considered in these applications.  The Court summarized the law as follows:

[15] The application is brought pursuant to Rule 5(8) of the Rules of Court…

[16] The order sought is discretionary.

[17] Exercise of this discretion is governed by the principles set out in the decision of Master Kirkpatrick, as she then was, in the case of Merritt v. Imasco Enterprises Inc. (1992), 2 C.P.C. (3d) 275 at para. 18 and 19:

18.       None of the submissions of counsel address the real issue to be determined. That is, are the issues raised by the pleadings sufficiently similar to warrant the order sought and will the order make sense in the circumstances? An application to have actions tried at the same time thus requires an examination of circumstances which may be of a more general nature than is made under R. 27 or 19.

19.       I accept that the foundation of an application under R. 5(8) is, indeed, disclosed by the pleadings. The examination of the pleadings will answer the first question to be addressed: do common claims, disputes and relationships exist between the parties? But the next question which one must ask is: are they “so interwoven as to make separate trials at different times before different judges undesirable and fraught with problems and economic expense”? Webster v. Webster (1979), 12 B.C.L.R. 172 at 182, 10 R.F.L. (2d) 148, 101 D.L.R. (3d) 248 (C.A.). That second question cannot, in my respectful view, be determined solely by reference to the pleadings. Reference must also be made to matters disclosed outside the pleadings:

(1)        Will the order sought create a saving in pre-trial procedures, (in particular, pre-trial conferences)?;

(2)        Will there be a real reduction in the number of trial days taken up by the trials being heard at the same time?;

(3)        What is the potential for a party to be seriously inconvenienced by being required to attend a trial in which that party may have only a marginal interest?; and

(4)        Will there be a real saving in experts’ time and witness fees?

This is in no way intended to be an exhaustive list. It merely sets out some of the factors which, it seems to me, ought to be weighed before making an order under R. 5(8).

[18] To these considerations, Master Joyce, as he then was, added two more in the case of Shah v. Bakken, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2836, 20 B.C.L.R. (3d) 393, at para. 15:

Other factors which in my view can be added to the foregoing list are:

(5)  Is one of the actions at a more advanced stage than the other? See: Forestral Automation Ltd. v. RMS Industrial Controls Inc. et al. (No.2), unreported, March 6, 1978, No. C765633/76, Vancouver (B.C.S.C.).

(6)  Will the order result a delay of the trial of one of the actions and, if so, does any prejudice which a party may suffer as a result of that delay outweigh the potential benefits which a combined trial might otherwise have?

In my continued effort to cross reference civil procedure cases with the new BC Supreme Court Rules which will take effect on July 1, 2010 Rule 5(8) is replicated in full under the New Rules and can be found at Rule 22-5(8).  Accordingly, the principles set out above will likely continue to be useful in considering similar applications once the new rules come into force.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry dealing with 2 types of pre-trial discovery procedures utilized in the Supreme Court, the scope of examination for discovery questions and requests for particulars.

In today’s case (Gulamani v. Chandra) the Plaintiff alleged injury from 2 motor vehicle collisions some 10 years apart.  The Defendant put together a rather ‘boilerplate’ statement of defence which alleged, amongst other things that the Plaintiff was injured in previous and/or subsequent incidents, that the Plaintiff failed to follow medical advice, that the Plaintiff failed to take appropriate medications and that the plaintiff  did not return to work when she reasonably could have.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer brought an application that the Defence lawyer provide better particulars of these allegations (these types of boilerplate allegations are very typical in Statements of Defence filed in BC Personal Injury Actions).

In granting the Plaintiff’s request for further particulars Madam Justice Arnold-Bailey summarized and applied the law as follows:

[27] The court has the discretion, under Rule 19(16), to order a party to deliver better and further particulars of a matter stated in a pleading, provided that the party seeking that order has demanded them in writing from the other party, as required by Rule 19(17).

[28] It is clear from the case law that the decision to order particulars is extremely discretionary and heavily fact dependent.

[29] Considering the cases provided by counsel on this issue, my view is that the request for particulars is very similar to the previously granted request for further particulars made by counsel for the plaintiff of the Chandra defendants.  Here, as in that motion, what has been provided is so broadly worded and generic that it tells the plaintiff virtually nothing as to the true nature of the case she has to meet with regards to her alleged congenital defects or diseases prior to or post-accident, or regarding aspects of her alleged failure to mitigate.  Such broadly worded statements are particularly problematic in the present case because of the plaintiff’s extensive history of medical treatment over the past 12 years, since the injuries allegedly sustained in the first accident are said to overlap with the injuries sustained in the second accident with the defendant.

[30] I do not find the decisions in Fireside or Hoy provided by counsel for the defendant to be of assistance in this case.  While they are both examples of cases in which particulars were not ordered, they are both easily distinguishable from the case at bar.  Hoy deals with specifics on standard of care in a class action matter, where significant particulars had already been provided.  Fireside was a case where more than a generic particular had already been provided to the plaintiff.  In the case at bar there have been no particulars provided at all with regard to the broad claims contained in the statement of defence.

[31] The Court of Appeal clearly stated the function of particulars in Cansulex Ltd. v. Perry, [1982] B.C.J. No. 369 (C.A.) [Cansulex], where Lambert J.A., for the court, described their use at para. 15:

(1)        to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet as distinguished from the mode in which that case is to be proved;

(2)        to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial;

(3)        to enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial;

(4)        to limit the generality of the pleadings;

(5)        to limit and decide the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required; and

(6)        to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not to be included.

[32] I now turn to the specific point set out in para. 15 of Cansulex that particulars are designed “to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet”.  In my view, the statements made in the statement of defence are not sufficient to enable the plaintiff to know the case she must meet.

[33] Considering further the points contained in para. 15 of Cansulex, in this case I find that if further and better particulars are not provided by the defendant as to how to the plaintiff failed to mitigate her losses generally as claimed and with regards to her alleged failing to take reasonable steps to return to work, failing to follow medical advice and failing to follow exercise advice, then if there is any substance to these claims, it is likely she will be taken by surprise at trial.  The same may be said with regards to any other incidents or congenital defects or diseases that the defendant alleges caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

[34] I turn to additional points set out at para. 15 of Cansulex, requiring that the particulars must “enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial”.  Based on what has been provided to date to the plaintiff, I do not see how proper trial preparation could be done.

[35] With regards to the further points from para. 15 of Cansulex regarding the purpose of particulars, “to limit and generality of pleadings” and “to limit and decide the issues to be tried”, once apprised of her alleged failure to mitigate the plaintiff will be able to take steps to collect the relevant evidence with regard to the specific failures or conduct alleged.  As indicated, the alleged overlap between the plaintiff’s injuries from the first accident in June 1997 to the alleged injuries from the second accident in July 2007, add considerable additional factual complexity.

[36] Regarding the final point in Cansulex at para. 15, that particulars serve to “tie the hands of the party so he cannot, without leave, go into any matters not included”, I find that there is considerable benefit to all parties in these actions to be tried together in the upcoming 30 day trial to properly identify and limit such claims.

[37] When considering an application for the delivery of further and better particulars, Bouck J. made a comment in Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Can. Ltd. (1978), 6 B.C.L.R. 25 at 27 (S.C.). at paras. 7-8, which I consider to be relevant to the present application, namely:

Occasionally parties can get caught up in the fascination of the interlocutory process and lose sight of the fact that some day the matter must go to trial even though a “perfect” framework does not exist for its presentation.  Sometimes as well one side or the other is merely replying to the overzealousness of his opponent and motions or their opposition are meant to let one another know it will be a long hard fight.

I mean no criticism of counsel by these remarks.  They are honestly trying to pursue every recourse for the benefit of their respective clients.  That is their right and their duty.

[38] For these reasons the plaintiff’s application for further particulars is granted.

The second pre-trial procedure dealt with in today’s case was the scope of examination for discovery questions.  On examination the Plaintiff’s lawyer asked the Defendant to provide his cell phone records (to help prove or disprove that he was on the phone at the moment of impact), to provide the names of “liability and damage witnesses and contact information”.  In holding that these are proper discovery questions Madam Justice Arnold Bailey applied and summarize the law as follows:

[39] With respect to question (a) and the demand for cellular phone records, Rule 27(20) states that “a person to be examined for discovery… shall produce for inspection on the examination all documents in his or her possession or control not privileged, relating to the matters in question in the action”.

[40] Liability is at issue and the potential for the cellular phone records to indicate whether the defendant was using his phone at the time of the accident does exist.  Although not referred to any authorities by counsel, I note that there are several cases where cellular phone records have been referred to as to whether a person was using the cellular phone at the time of the accident.  One such case is Abay v. Keung, 2006 BCSC 1236, in which the plaintiff testified that the defendant had been using a cellular phone at the time of the accident, and the defendant denied doing so.  The defendant there had also refused to divulge his cellular phone records on examination for discovery.  There is no record of a demand being made for those records.  In that case, Cohen J. found, at para. 73, “although I find that the defendant had a cell phone in his vehicle, I cannot conclude that the defendant was talking on the cell phone at the time of the collision, as there is strongly conflicting evidence on this point”.  Cohen J. did not comment on the lack of records as affecting credibility or believability of the defendant.

[41] Conversely, in Zubko v. Ezaki, 2002 BCSC 1894, the defendant produced her cellular phone records to prove conclusively that she was not speaking on her phone at the time of the accident, as was alleged by the plaintiff.

[42] While I agree with the submission on behalf of the defendant that the phone records will not necessarily show with certainty whether the defendant was talking on the phone at the time of the accident, it seems that those records are within the scope of Rule 27(20) insofar as they relate to the matters in question in the action, namely liability for the motor vehicle accident.  It is entirely possible that the records will prove to have little weight at trial, but that is irrelevant to what is required by Rule 27(20).  Accordingly, I order the defendant to provide the answers to questions 68 – 71 of the examination for discovery, including providing his cell phone records for the day of the accident.

[43] With regard to question (b) and the names and contact information of liability and damage witness names, I agree with the reasoning in Sovani, at para. 3, where Paris J. held “Rule 27(22) means just what it says, namely, that the names and addresses of such persons must be disclosed if requested and the fact that a person’s knowledge relates only to the issue of damages does not safeguard the names from disclosure”.  Accordingly, I order the defendant to answer question 276 and as posed on p. 63 of the examination for discovery.

Lastly, since this is a case dealing with Civil Procedure, it is my practice to check if this case will remain a useful precedent when the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules come into effect in July, 2010.  The answer is probably yes as the current Rule 19(16)(17) which the court relied on in its order for further particulars remains intact under the new rules and can be found at Rule 3-7(22).

With respect to the order addressing examinations for discovery, this case relied on Rule 27(20) which remains largely intact under the new Supreme Court Rules and can be found at Rule 7-2(16).  While the new rule seems to have some restrictions to it not present in the current rule the same result should arguably apply as the rule for production of relevant documents at the discovery will continue to apply to “a person for whose immediate benefit an action is..defended” as set out in Rule 7-2(6).

Adding to this “pain and suffering case-law database” reasons for judgement were released today dealing with damages for a knee injury and soft tissue injuries sustained in a BC Car Crash.

In today’s case (Hill v. Durham), the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 rear end accident.  The Plaintiff was a passenger at the time and the issue of liability (fault) was admitted at trial.  The trial focused on the extent of the Plaintiff’s accident related injuries and their value.  In total, damages of just over $77,000 were awarded including an award of $40,000 for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).

In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Barrow summarized the Plaintiff’s accident related injuries and prognosis for these as follows:

[22] Dr. McKenzie saw Ms. Hill in early October 2006. In his consultation report of October 12, 2006 he wrote that Ms. Hill’s problem seemed to be localized to a particular tendon in the knee and he thought that it may be the “result of trauma during the motor vehicle accident”. He prescribed exercises and ordered some further diagnostic imaging. An MRI was performed in January 2007 and it revealed two things:  thinning of the patellar cartilage in the knee joint and greater than normal water content in one of the bones, a condition technically described as subchondrial bone marrow edema. Dr. McKenzie testified that edema such as that found in Ms. Hill’s knee is caused by one of two things:  trauma or excessive wear and tear. When it is caused by excessive wear and tear it is accompanied by other findings visible on x-ray. Those other findings were not present in Ms. Hill’s knee, and as a result Dr. McKenzie concluded that the edema she is experiencing is as a result of trauma. He noted that Ms. Hill’s left knee has neither of the conditions. He testified that the degree of trauma necessary to cause this condition would “not be trivial”. He said that the problems are consistent with the kind of trauma that might be sustained by hitting a knee on the dash in motor vehicle accident…

25]         To a degree the resolution of this issue and other issues turns on the reliability and credibility of Ms. Hill. In general I found Ms. Hill to be a careful and credible witness. She testified that she had experienced bumps, bruises and injuries of various kinds over the course of her life. She said that she had always recovered reasonably quickly and completely from these events. She expected to do likewise following this accident. In general she impressed me as someone not prone to dwell on or overstate her physical problems. I accept that she now believes she struck her knee in the collision, although she has reached that conclusion not because she specifically remembers doing so but rather on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. She testified almost in passing that at one of her first yoga classes, within a month of the motor vehicle accident, she told her teacher that she was experiencing difficulties with her right knee. I accept her evidence on that point, and accept that she became aware of the discomfort in her knee reasonably shortly after the accident. Further, I am satisfied that she did not strike her knee after the accident in a manner that would give rise to the condition Dr. McKenzie found. I think it more likely than not that, as Dr. McKenzie noted, Ms. Hill was experiencing a number of more significant pains in the immediate aftermath of the collision and it was only as those pains subsided and her activity level increased that she became aware of the difficulty in her right knee.

[26]         I am satisfied that Ms. Hill’s right knee problems are caused by the motor vehicle accident.

[27]         The prognosis for this injury is guarded. Dr. McKenzie’s opinion is that the condition is often chronic. In February 2007 he prescribed a knee brace for use when exercising in a way that strains the knee. In his opinion, Ms. Hill may require renewals of that brace as well as periodic support from physiotherapists and medications for pain and inflammation. Ms. Hill reported to Dr. Dodek in October 2008 that her knee symptoms were improving.

[28]         Ms. Hill’s other injury is to the soft tissues of her back. She has headaches secondary to that injury. In his October 28, 2008 report, Dr. Dodek expressed the view that her “long term prognosis for recovery…remains good” notwithstanding that almost three years had passed since the accident. Dr. Travlos, in his November 1, 2007 report, wrote that Ms. Hill’s headaches would continue to reduce in frequency and would likely return to their pre‑accident level. As to her right mid and low back difficulties, he expressed no opinion on future prognosis. He did, however, encourage Ms. Hill to add cycling to her exercise program and to reduce her reliance on physiotherapy. He also thought that her consumption of over-the-counter analgesics could and should be reduced. Dr. Apel, in her September 12, 2008 report, concluded that the prognosis for complete recovery is guarded however the prognosis for significant symptom reduction is fair to good. In her view, Ms. Hill’s current exercise program is insufficient and with appropriate changes, including increased focus on stretching, she will experience further symptom reduction…

[34]         Turning to the authorities, the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in Menhinick, Wery, and Houghton (Litigation Guardian of), are generally similar to those suffered by Ms. Hill. The prognosis for each of those plaintiffs, however, was more guarded than I find is the case for Ms. Hill. The injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in the other authorities cited by counsel for Ms. Hill are all significantly more serious. On the other hand, I am satisfied that Ms. Hill’s injuries are more significant than those suffered by the plaintiffs in Krogh and Job.

[35]         In summary, Ms. Hill suffered a moderate soft tissue injury to her back. That injury remains problematic almost four years after the accident. I am satisfied that it will continue to improve. Her knee injury is less painful but is likely to last longer, if not indefinitely. Based on all of the evidence and a consideration of all of the authorities cited by counsel, I find that the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $40,000. Although not asked to, I would allocate that award $25,000 to the back injury and $15,000 to the knee injury. I have not reduced the award to account for Ms. Hill’s pre‑existing knee problems because I am satisfied they would not interfere in any significant way with her recreational and other activities.