ICBC Law

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Carlito Pablo of the Georgia Straight who was writing an article on the recent BC Court of Appeal decision clarifying ICBC’s obligations to fund massage therapy treatments.  In short BC’s highest court found that massage therapy is a “mandatory” as opposed to a “discretionary” benefit and needs to be funded for accident victims where it is medically reasonable and necessary.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information addressing this topic you can click here to read my previous post addressing this development and here for my archived posts addressing issues concerning ICBC’s no-fault benefits.

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of being briefly interviewed by Gordon Hoekstra of the Vancouver Sun who was authoring a story on waivers of liability for sports organizations.  In short the article emphasized the need for organizations to clearly bring liability waivers to the attention of those signing them otherwise there is risk that the waivers will be ineffective.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information addressing this topic you can click the following link to access my archived posts discussing waivers of liability in BC Injury Claims.

I’d like to welcome all my new readers who are here following yesterday’s interview with Charles Adler of Corus Radio. You can click here to listen to my portion of the interview:  charles-adler-erik-magraken-interview-september-8-2011 (clip courtesy of CJOB 68 Winnipeg, Corus Radio Network)

Charles canvassed the case in Illinois involving children suing their mother for alleged emotional distress.  The conversation then turned to the thresh-hold for suing for psychiatric injuries in British Columbia and the “Loser Pays” system.

For more on these topics you can click here to read my archived posts addressing lawsuits for psychological harm, and here for my archived posts on BC’s Loser Pays System.

This afternoon I had the pleasure of being interviewed with Sean Leslie from CKNW.  The show focused on the recent bus collision in Richmond, BC which injured numerous passengers.

Thank you to all my new visitors.  If you are looking for more information regarding the topics discussed you can click on the following links to access my archived posts addressing no-fault benefits, unidentified motorist claims and the two roles of ICBC.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of being briefly interviewed by Simi Sara who was filling in for Mike Smyth on CKNW to discuss the issue of fault following collisions with pedestrians.  In short, when a pedestrian is struck motorists are not automatically at fault for the collision.  The law requires both pedestrians and motorists to be reasonable when using the roadway in looking out for each other.  The determination of fault in an injury lawsuit goes beyond looking at who had the right of way at the time of the accident.

For those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information following yesterday’s interview here is a link to my archived posts discussing fault for crashes involving jaywalkers and collisions involving pedestrians.  Thanks for visiting.

Earlier this week I was asked to participate in a radio interview with Dave Rutherford where we discussed the recent Supreme Court of Canada Decision Vancouver v. Ward.

You can click here for some background information.  In short the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that Canadian Judges can award financial damages if the Government violates an individuals rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This decision will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the Canadian Legal landscape and I was pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this with Dave and his listeners in Alberta.

A quick correction is warranted as well.  Early in the interview I speculate that criminal lawyers could potentially ask for the remedy of damage awards in the course of a criminal trial but later in the interview I point out that this is in fact not a possibility.  The Supreme Court of Canada specifically notes that “Provincial criminal courts are not so empowered and thus do not have the power to award damages under s. 24(1).”  For individuals to seek damages for breach of Charter rights the appropriate way to put the matter before the Courts is through a conventional lawsuit.

You can click on the following link to listen to the interview in full:

bc-injury-law-dave-rutherford-interview.

As always, any feedback is welcome!

In what has proven a very popular topic, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the implications of the Vancouver v. Ward case with News1130, The Dave Rutherford Show, and now with ILSTV.

I’d like to thank Julie Hawrishok of ILSCorp for providing me with the following clip:

This is my latest in a series of podcasts discussing topics of interest in BC personal injury lawsuits.

Today I address pre-existing injuries and how these can be relevant in assessing damages in personal injury claims.

You can listen by clicking on the following link:  bc-injury-law-blog-pre-existing-conditions

If you want to learn more about pre-existing conditions and their treatment in personal injury lawsuits you can click here to access my archived posts on this topic.

UPDATE:  Since initially uploading this podcast the BC Court of Appeal released important reasons addressing injuries with multiple causes.  You can click here to read my article discussing this important case.

Further to my article published last week, the Supreme Court of Canada will soon decide whether damages can be awarded in lawsuits against the Government for breach of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shane Bigham of Vancouver’s News 1130 picked up on the story and ran a piece last week bringing further attention to this matter.  Shane was kind enough to provide me with a clip of this story and you can listen to it by clicking on the following link( bc-injury-law-civil-lawsuits-against-police-for-charter-breaches.)

The bottom line is that actions which violate individuals rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may bring rise to lawsuits for civil damages.  Once the Supreme Court of Canada gives their decision in the Vancouver v. Ward appeal there will be welcome clarity in this area of the law.

While I don’t necessarily think that the floodgates will open if these types of lawsuits get the green light from the Suprene Court of Canada public institutions (police departments in particular) need to rethink the potential financial exposure their actions bring when creating policies that may violate rights under the Charter.

Mass searches at public events (such as alcohol searches at Canada Day festivities and the Celebration of Light) could give rise to numerous lawsuits.   Before deciding on the protocol that will be employed by police at these types of public events the RCMP and municipal police forces ought not overlook the potential implications of civil damages for Charter breaches.

This is the first in what I intend to be a series of podcasts discussing topics of interest involving ICBC and other BC personal injury claims.

Today’s topic is valuing a person’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) as a result of injuries caused by the fault of another.  To listen simply click on the following link:  bc-injury-law-podcast-non-pecuniary-damages

The case discussed in this Podcast is Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 and can be found by clicking here.