ICBC Law

Further to my previous post on this topic, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal discussing the principles behind binding settlement agreements in ICBC injury claims when lawyers accept an offer on their client’s behalf.

As I wrote earlier:

Lawyers act as agents for their clients.  Lawyers can, therefore, bind their clients to a settlement.   Typically a client will give a lawyer authority to settle their claim for X dollars and the lawyer will attempt to get that amount or more.  If a lawyer accepts an ICBC settlement offer on behalf of their client the client is typically bound to the settlement, even if the client later wishes to get out of the settlement by not signing ICBC’s full and final release.

Today’s case (Lacroix v. Loewen) demonstrated this principle.  In Lacroix, the Plaintiff gave her lawyer instructions to accept a settlement offer.  The lawyer then did accept ICBC’s settlement offer.  The client, after speaking with some friends, decided not to proceed with the settlement and did not sign ICBC’s settlement contract.  The client proceeded with her Injury Claim and ICBC brought an application to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that it was already settled.  The Chamber’s judge ruled that the case was not settled because ICBC insisted on a term beyond the scope of the initial settlement agreement thus ‘repudiating‘ the contract.  ICBC appealed and succeeded.  In setting aside the lower court’s judgement the BC Court of Appeal found there was no repudiation and set out the following principles:

25] The chambers judge held that there was a settlement and that ICBC then repudiated the agreement by insisting upon terms that were not agreed upon….

[38] Applying the principles of contractual interpretation, the communications between Mr. Mickelson and the adjuster, Mr. Per, objectively indicate that there was an enforceable settlement including both tort and Part 7 claims. Looking at all the material facts, the reasonable objective bystander would conclude that the parties intended to make a final settlement of both tort and Part 7 claims.

[39] At the time of the discussions between Mr. Mickelson and Mr. Per, there was no outstanding action for either tort damages or Part 7 benefits. There was simply a “file” which included both tort and Part 7 claims. When Mr. Mickelson and Mr. Per spoke, the evidence indicates that their discussions concerned the “file” as a whole, and the “merits” of her claims. No differentiation was made between tort and Part 7. Their discussions about “settlement” were directed to settling the “file”/“matter”. This is clear from Mr. Per’s affidavit, which states:

3.   On March 11, 2004, I received a telephone call from John Mickelson with respect to special expenses which he wanted covered. After a discussion of the merits of the file I offered to settle the matter for $5,500.00. John Mickelson stated that he would speak to his client and get back to me…

9.   On March 16, 2004, I spoke to John Mickelson by telephone with respect to the returned cheque and release. I specifically asked Mr. Mickelson if he had instructions from Ms. Lacroix to settle the matter at the time that the counter offer was made and accepted by myself. He told me that he did have such instructions.

[40] The judge correctly noted at para. 30 of his reasons that, “There was no mention of the fate of any subsequent Part 7 claims until the release was forwarded to counsel for the plaintiff”. However, the trial judge failed to acknowledge that there was little or no specific mention of individual aspects of any claims, tort or Part 7. The objective observer would conclude that was so because Mr. Mickelson and Mr. Per’s discussions were directed to a settlement of the “file” or “matter” as a whole. Both sides understood the benefits and advantages of settling early, and concluding the matter in its entirety. To an objective observer, they did so.

[41] While the above conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the repudiation issue, a word or two is warranted. While the chambers judge cited proper authority in Fieguth in relation to repudiation, he incorrectly applied that authority. The judge concluded that the mere tendering of documents with terms that have not been agreed upon can constitute repudiation. That is an error. As set out above, in Fieguth Chief Justice McEachern said at p. 70:

…One can tender whatever documents he thinks appropriate without rescinding the settlement agreement. If such documents are accepted and executed and returned then the contract, which has been executory, becomes executed. If the documents are not accepted then there must be further discussion but neither party is released or discharged unless the other party has demonstrated an unwillingness to be bound by the agreement by insisting upon terms or conditions which have not been agreed upon or are not reasonably implied in the circumstances.

[42] This passage continues to be a correct statement of the law and to accord with sound practice.

I repeat my advice that the lesson in this case is to make sure that when you give your lawyer settlement instructions understand that he/she can make a binding commitment on your behalf based on these instructions.  Better yet, if you don’t know your lawyers negotiation tactics consider asking him or her to negotiate on a non-binding basis giving you, the client, the final say when the claim settlement paperwork is presented to you.

In my continued efforts to write about the development of Rule 37B (the rule that deals with costs consequences after a party beats a formal settlement offer at trial) two cases were released this week further interpreting this rule.

The first case (Ostiguy v. Hui) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 BC car crash.  She ultimately represented herself.  In the course of the lawsuit ICBC made a formal settlement offer under the old Rule 37 for $30,000.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer and went to trial.  The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $10,000.   The Defendants brought a motion for costs.

After addressing a technical issue about the offer’s general compliance with the old Rule 37 Mr. Justice Williams decided that the offer was capable of triggering costs consequences under the new Rule 37B.  The Court went on to award the Defendant 60% of their costs from the time that liability was admitted onward.  In reaching this decision the Court held that whether the Defendant was insured with ICBC was not to be considered (an issue the BC Supreme Court cannot agree on and needs to be addressed by the Court of Appeal).

The Court made the following notable comments:

[68] I have no knowledge as to the circumstances of the defendants; I will proceed on the basis that they are ordinary people of ordinary means. I should note parenthetically that, although they were represented by an insurer, it is their circumstances and not those of the insurer which are to be considered…

[71] In this case, the costs which the plaintiff is liable to pay are substantial. That is attributable in significant part to the fact that this litigation dragged on considerably. The plaintiff hired and subsequently discharged two different lawyers before proceeding to act for herself. There were a number of delays. Costs have mounted.

[72] The law is clear that sympathy is not a basis to determine the outcome of matters such as this. Nevertheless, it is quite disconcerting to see the plaintiff’s award of damages for her injury completely obliterated and overshadowed by a costs obligation, and for the consequences in fact to go further, to leave the plaintiff with a huge bill to pay as well.

[73] At the same time, the Court must be cautious that the sound and basic principles that underlie the costs regime are not simply disregarded because the plaintiff chose to represent herself and chose to proceed as she did.

[74] In the final result, the matter requires a balancing of a number of considerations and a significant application of judgment to try and fashion an outcome that is fair in the circumstances. Approaching the task in that fashion, I have decided as follows:

(a)      The effective date of the Offer will be July 14, 2008, when the defendants advised the plaintiff that liability was being admitted.

(b)      Up to July 14, 2008, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants her costs and disbursements.

(c)      For the time period following July 14, 2008, the defendants are entitled to recover from the plaintiff their disbursements and 60% of their costs.

For my readers not familiar with the potential extent of cost consequences I should point out that on these findings there is a good chance that the Plaintiff, despite being awarded $10,000 by the Jury, would end up owing ICBC money.  When preparing for trial it is imperative that parties consider the potential consequences of formal settlement offers.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second case released this week was interesting because the Defendant made what appears to be a novel use of Rule 37B.  Usually parties restrict formal settlement offers to the issues to be addressed at trial.  In this week’s case (Moro v. El Mantari) the Defendant used Rule 37B in a Chambers application.

The parties could not agree on a lot of issues in the lawsuit.  Prior to trial the Parties brought cross motions to be decided in Chambers.  Prior to this pre-trial hearing the Defendant made a formal settlement offer under Rule 37B asking that the Plaintiff consent to various aspects of their motion.

The Defendant was largely successful in Chambers.  The Court was asked to award the Defendant double costs for Chambers because of the formal offer.  In the first case that I’m aware of using Rule 37B in this fashion Mr. Justice Chamberlist agreed that it was a permitted use of the Rule.  Specifically the Court held as follows:

[18] The defendant submits that it should be entitled to double costs on the basis of its offer to settle to the plaintiff made on June 26, 2009.  At that time the defendant asked the plaintiff to consent to items 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of her notice of motion.

[19] The fact is that R. 37 has since 2008 been amended by deleting the subrules that an offer to settle did not apply to interlocutory proceedings.  The overriding fact is that there must be substantial success.  ..

22] Thus R. 37B(4) permits the court to consider an offer to settle when exercising the court’s discretion in relation to costs.

[23] As a result, the fact that the defendant has failed to meet the terms of the offer to settle will no longer necessarily mean that she would be deprived of her double costs.  In various decisions of this court it would appear that an issue which has been discussed in many cases is whether the offer to settle is one that ought reasonably to have been accepted (R. 37B(6)(a))….

[26] The enactment of R. 37B so that it now applies to interlocutory applications as well as trial, demonstrates the purpose of the new rule is to allow an offer to settle to be made, and if I were to follow the plaintiff’s position it would completely ignore the important deterrent function of the rule…

[32] In this case the offer to settle was made on June 26, 2009, and I find that the defendant was substantially successful.  The defendant shall have her costs of her attendance before me on August 27 and 28, 2009, as calculated in accordance with R. 37B, namely double costs.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as these retain their value as precedents.

One principle that is becoming well defined with respect to Rule 37B is that settlement offers made on the eve of trial may not trigger any costs consequences.  Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Parwani v. Sekhon) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 BC car crash.  The Plaintiff sued for damages.  As trial approached the Plaintiff offered to settle his case for $37,000 plus costs and disbursements.  On the last business day before trial the Defendants responded with a formal settlement offer under Rule 37B for $10,000 plus 50% of disbursements.

The claim went to trial and the Plaintiff claimed damages of $270,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Plaintiff being found 75% at fault.  Damages were assessed at $25,000 leaving an award of $6,250 for the Plaintiff (25% of $25,000).

The Parties could not agree on costs consequences.  The Defendants argued that since they beat their formal offer they should be awarded the costs of trial.  Madam Justice Ross disagreed with this submission finding that while the Defendants offer should have been accepted it was simply made too late.  In declining to award the Defendants any costs the Court reasoned as follows:

[18] The defendants submit that the offer to settle was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted given the evidence with respect to the liability issue. In addition, the position taken by the plaintiff at trial with respect to his losses was unreasonable given the medical evidence and the paucity of evidence to support the claims. The offer exceeded the plaintiff’s recovery at trial. The position of the plaintiff was that he did not have adequate time to consider the offer, coming as it did on the eve of trial. Moreover, had the plaintiff accepted the offer, considering the disbursements already incurred, the plaintiff would have recovered only $765.34. Accordingly, it was not reasonable to accept the offer. The plaintiff had made an early offer to settle that reflected a considerable discount to reflect the uncertainties in the case.

[19] In my view, while the defendants’ offer was reasonable, it was not early. It came on the eve of trial, after substantial costs and disbursements had been incurred. Such an offer is not the embodiment of the conduct the rule intends to promote. In the circumstances, and considering the factors identified in the rule, I am not prepared to consider the offer in relation to the award of costs.

As readers of this blog are likely aware, Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 on July 1, 2010 when the new BC Civil Rules come into force. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

You can click here to read access my archived posts discussing Rule 37B in injury lawsuits.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing whether the BC Supreme Court has discretion to make costs awards after a formal settlement offer is accepted that specifically addresses costs consequences.

In today’s case (Hambrook v. Sandhu) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 BC collision.  He sued for damages.  The defence lawyer (instructed by ICBC) made a formal offer to settle the case for $75,000 plus costs up to the time that the offer was made with the Defendant being entitled to costs thereafter.  (this offer was made under the old Rule 37 which has now been repealed).

The Plaintiff initially dismissed the offer and continued in the lawsuit.   Three days before trial the Plaintiff accepted the offer.  The parties could not agree on the costs consequences.  The Plaintiff argued that Rule 37B (the rule that governed at the time of acceptance) gave the Court discretion to award her costs up to the date the offer was accepted.   Mr. Justice Verhoeven disagreed and held that when a settlement offer is accepted that specifically spells out the costs consequences there is no discretion for the Court to exercise under Rule 37B.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[28] But it has also been held that a settlement agreement containing terms as to payment of costs leaves the court with no room for the exercise of discretion pursuant to Rule 37B:  Buttar v. Di Spirito, 2009 BCSC 72 at para. 17..

[30] Madam Justice Gerow held that the court had no discretion to award costs in the matter before her. She stated at para. 11:

[11]      Both parties advanced arguments that the court has discretion under Rule 37B to make an order regarding costs. However, it is my opinion that the court has no discretion to make an order regarding costs in this matter. Mr. Buttar accepted the offer put forth by the defendants, including the offer regarding costs, without reservation. It is my view that Rule 37B does not confer a discretion on the court to set aside an agreement that has been entered into between the parties regarding costs.

[31] On this basis, where a party has specified the costs consequences of acceptance of its offer to settle, within an offer to settle to which Rule 37B applies, and a settlement agreement results in accordance with the offer, the court does not retain a discretion to depart from the terms of the agreement.

[32] Put another way, it remains open to litigating parties to make an offer to settle within the meaning of Rule 37B and to specify the costs consequences of acceptance of the offer. In my view this is a positive result. It allows the parties to create their own bargain. It provides for certainty, and avoids the need for applications to court where a settlement agreement is reached, while preserving the court’s discretion in cases where no settlement occurs…

[37] In my view the agreement that the parties made was unambiguous. The defendants’ offer was clear in relation to the costs consequence of acceptance; the defendants would pay the costs until the date of the offer, and if the plaintiff were to accept the offer after that date, then the defendants would be entitled to costs after that date.

[38] After July 1, 2008, when the new rule came into effect, the defendants’ offer remained open for acceptance in accordance with its terms. The defendants had not withdrawn it or amended it. The new rule affected the costs consequences in the event that the offer was not accepted, and the court went on to render a judgment. That did not occur…

[61] The plaintiff will receive costs in accordance with Appendix B, Scale B, for the time leading to delivery of the defendants’ offer to settle. The defendants will receive costs following that date. No argument was presented to me that there should be any distinction between the tariff items and disbursements. The applicable costs will include both tariff items and disbursements.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

Further to my recent post on this topic, another case was just released by the  BC Supreme Court considering whether the Court can consider the fact that the Defendant is insured when determining what costs consequences a formal offer of settlement should have in an ICBC Claim.

In today’s case (Cridge v. Ivancic) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 car crash in Surrey, BC.  The Plaintiff sued for damages.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant and the Court was asked to value the claim.

Prior to trial the Defendants (through their ICBC appointed defence lawyer) made a formal offer to settle the case for $50,000.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer and went to trial.  At trial the Plaintiff sought damages of over $100,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Court awarding just over $12,000 in total damages.

The Defendants brought a motion seeking that the Plaintiff pay their costs from the point of trial onward.   The Court held that it was not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to reject the formal offer until the week before trial.  As a result the Court awarded the Plaintiff her costs until that stage and the Defendants their costs from that time on.  The result was the costs cancelled each other out.  While there is nothing noteworthy about this result, the decision is worth reviewing because it is yet another precedent discussing whether insurance is a relevant consideration under Rule 37B.  Madam Justice Fenlon held that the existence of insurance is a fair consideration stating as follows:

[14] Under R. 37B(6)(c), another consideration is “the relative financial circumstances of the parties”. The defendants were represented by ICBC. The plaintiff was unrepresented; she is a retired accountant in her 70s, and appears to be of limited means, working only part-time each spring during tax season.

[15] There is conflicting case law on the issue of whether a defendant’s insurance coverage is relevant to the consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties. In Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372 at paras. 32-34, 90 B.C.L.R. (4th) 125 [Bailey], Hinkson J. held that the defendant’s insurance coverage should not be considered because the wording of Rule 37B(6)(c) of the Rules of Court does not invite such consideration and because an insurer is not generally a party to the litigation. Bailey has been followed on this point in various cases, including Abma v. Paul, 2009 BCSC 60 at para. 32, 66 C.P.C. (6th) 100, and A.E. v. D.W.J., 2009 BCSC 505 at para. 58, 91 B.C.L.R. (4th) 372.

[16] However, in Radke at para. 42, Boyd J. held that the fact that the defendants were represented by ICBC and “had substantially greater resources to finance a trial than the individual plaintiff” is a relevant consideration under R. 37B(6)(c). Radke was followed in Smith v. Tedford, 2009 BCSC 905, 77 C.P.C. (6th) 308, where Mr. Justice Grist stated at para. 16 that “[t]he ability to have a case advanced by experienced and well funded counsel is, to my mind, a resource that should be taken into account in exercising the judicial discretion stipulated under the new Rule.”

[17] I find Mrs. Cridge’s modest financial means and the defendants’ representation by ICBC to be a relevant consideration, although not a significant or determinative factor in my decision.

As pointed out in my last article on the topic, Rule 37B has been on the books now for almost two years.  The Court is clearly conflicted about whether the availability of insurance is a relevant factor under the rule.  When the New BC Supreme Court Rules come into force on July 1, 2010 Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9.  Rule 9 uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so the lack of clarity will likely continue.  In light of the on-going conflicting authorities it will be useful if the BC Court of Appeal addresses this issue.

It is not uncommon for personal injury lawsuits to sever the issues of quantum and liability.  What this means is that with a Court order a lawsuit can proceed on the issue of fault first and leave the issue of the value of the claim for a later date.  This often makes sense in serious injury litigation with contested liability where the cost of proving damages will be expensive and the parties wish to save the money associated with this until its clear who is at fault for an accident.

As readers of this post know Rule 37B permits the Court to reward a successful party in a lawsuit with a double costs award if that party beats a formal settlement offer.  In cases addressing quantum its easy to determine if a formal offer was beat at trial.  You simply look at the numbers.  But can Rule 37B be used in a liability only trial?  Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with this issue for what I believe is the first time.

In today’s case (McLaren v. Rice) the Plaintiff made a personal injury claim against the various defendants.   Liability and quantum were severed.  Before the liability trial proceeded the Plaintiff made the following formal settlement to the Defendants:

The plaintiff, Matthew R.J. McLaren, offers to settle the liability trial in this proceeding on the following terms: that the defendant is 99 percent responsible for the motor vehicle accident of February 26, 2005, in which the plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle owned and operated by the defendants and costs in accordance with Rule 37B.

The plaintiff reserves the right to bring this offer to the attention of the court or consideration in relation to costs after the court has rendered judgment on all other issues in this proceeding relating to liability for the accident.

This offer was rejected.  The Plaintiff proceeded to trial and was successful with the Court finding that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the accident.

The Plaintiff brought a motion seeking double costs under Rule 37B.  The Defendants opposed this arguing that when the plaintiff added the words “relating to liability in this proceeding” to the offer it was rendered null because it did not comply with Rule 37B(1)(c)(3) which requires a formal offer to contain the 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 judgement on all other issues in this proceeding“.

Mr. Justice Brooke rejected this argument and held that Rule 37B can be used in liability only trials.  The Court provided this short but helpful analysis:

[7] Despite the prescribed formulation in Rule 37B, 1(c)(3) being added to with the words “relating to liability in this proceeding”, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has complied with the definition of offer to settle contained in Rule 37B(1) and the issue is properly before me. On the trial of the quantum issue, it seems to me that Rule 37B may again be invoked. The two aspects of the trial are separate and discrete.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

As strange as it may sound the answer is yes.  Lawyers are client’s agents and as such their actions can bind their clients.  If a lawyer agrees to a settlement even if the lawyer does not have or is mistaken about their client’s instructions the settlement agreement can be binding.  Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Park v. Palmer) the Plaintiffs took their claim to trial.  The Plaintiffs were represented by their niece who was a lawyer from Toronto.

At the close of the Plaintiffs case the Defendants brought a no-evidence motion. (a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim for failure to call any evidence on an essential element of the case).

The Plaintiffs were apparently concerned about the costs consequences they’d be exposed to if the motion was successful.  Before the Court ruled on the motion the Plaintiff and Defence lawyers had settlement discussions.  When the parties returned to court the Defence lawyer advised the court as follows:

My Lady, I can advise the court of a settlement that was just reached between my friend and I.  The plaintiffs agree to withdraw and discontinue their action, and the defendants, in turn, agree to waive their costs.  We wanted to alert Your Ladyship and with apologies for not being able to advise you of this earlier, but that is the arrangement.  That is the settlement that has been agreed to between myself and my friend.

The Plaintiffs lawyer was present in Court when this statement was made.

The settlement the Plaintiff lawyer allegedly accepted was a Defence offer to “settle the matter by waiving costs and disbursements in return for the plaintiffs agreeing to discontinue and withdraw thier action against the defendants“.

Upon hearing that a settlement was reached the Court did not rule on the No Evidence Motion.  Some time passed and the parties could not agree on whether or not there was a binding settlement.  The Plaintiffs said that “they did not give instructions to settle (to their lawyer)”.  The parties ultimately brought this matter before the Court and asked the presiding Judge to decide “whether or not a settlement was reached in this matter“.

Madam Justice Dillon held that the matter was indeed settled.  Specifically the Court held:

Certainly (the Plaintiffs lawyer) was in the courtroom at that time (the court was informed there was a settlement).  There is some controversy in the affidavits before me as to whether or not (the Plaintiffs) were in the courtroom.  Notwithstanding that uncertainty, clearly (the Plaintiffs lawyer) had authority, as lawyer, agent, and representative of the plaintiffs, to speak on their behalf before the court.  As a lawyer and officer of the court, this court can rely on what (the Plaintiffs lawyer) tells the court. ..

[11] While I realize that this creates an unfortunate situation for the plaintiffs, there is no doubt that (their lawyer) settled this matter before the court by the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw and discontinue their action and the defendants waiving their costs.  The plaintiffs’ recourse now is against (their lawyer) for failure to follow instructions, if that indeed is the case.

[12] This court has to rely on the statements of legal counsel and, in the circumstances before me, I have no alternative but to enforce the settlement that was stated before me on July 4, 2008.

[13] Therefore, I order that this matter is discontinued.  The plaintiffs’ writ and statement of claim is ordered to be withdrawn, and there will be no costs to the defendant.

It is worth noting that the Court did not decide whether the Plaintiffs’ lawyer actually had instructions to accept the settlement matter.  Ultimately it does not matter.  If the Plaintiffs did give those instructions then the case was settled.  If the lawyer acted without instructions the case would still be settled but as Madam Justice Dillon pointed out “the Plaintiffs’ recourse is now against (their lawyer) for failure to follow instructions, if that indeed is the case“.

There is a good lesson to learn here for both clients and lawyers.  If you are giving your lawyer instructions to settle it is vital to know that your lawyer can create an agreement that is binding on you even if you later change your mind.   For this reason you should be committed to the result when giving a lawyer settlement instructions.  For lawyers, it is a good idea to take important instructions in writing so that there is clarity and certainty before settlement offers are made and accepted.

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with a very interesting set of facts.  Can a Defendant accept a Formal Settlement Offer from a Plaintiff when the Plaintiff forgot the offer was made in the first place?

In yesterday’s case (Burton v. Bakker) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 BC motor vehicle accident.  He hired a lawyer to help him advance his ICBC claim.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff’s lawyer made a formal settlement offer to resolve the claim for $40,000.  Some time after this the Plaintiff switched lawyers.  When the new lawyer took over the file “there was no copy of the settlement offer made (by the last lawyer) in the file and the correspondence accompanying the file made no reference to (the) offer“.

Almost one year passed.  During this time the potential value of the Plaintiff’s claim appreciated significantly.  The Plaintiff’s new lawyer continued to be unaware of the outstanding offer made by the first lawyer.  Then the Defendants lawyer, without any prior notice to the Plaintiff’s new lawyer, accepted the formal settlement offer.  The parties could not agree if there was a binding settlement which resulted in the Defendants applying to Court for “a declaration that there is a binding settlement agreement“.

Madam Justice Bruce of the BC Supreme Court presided over the application.   The Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that “the offer to settle was made under a misapprehension of the facts underlying the claim such that it would result in an injustice to enforce the settlement“.  Ultimately the Court held that this is an issue that would better be dealt with by the trial judge as opposed to in a pre-trial chambers application.  Before reaching this conclusion, however, Madam Justice Bruce provided a useful discussion of the powers of BC Courts to offer remedies in the enforcement of settlement agreements.  Here are the highlights of the Courts discussion:

[20] The enforcement of settlement agreements is not a separate field of law exempt from the ordinary principles of contract law and the rules of procedure. The various means of enforcing a settlement agreement may involve equitable principles, discretionary remedies, and rules regarding the entry of consent orders; however, this does not oust the general principles of contract law. This proposition of law is amply supported by the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Robertson where Lambert J.A. says at 386:

The law in relation to the enforcement of settlement agreements by stays of proceedings brings together principles of contract law, principles of the law of agency as they apply to barristers and solicitors, rules of equity as they apply to discretionary remedies, and rules of procedure as they apply to the pronouncement and entry of consent orders. In each case, the issues between the parties must be dealt with in accordance with those principles. The effectiveness and the enforcement of settlement agreements does not constitute a separate field of law to which the ordinary principles of contract law, agency, and equity, and the ordinary rules of procedure, do not apply.

[21] It is because the enforcement of settlement agreements involves such a collage of legal and equitable principles that the remedies available to the court have become somewhat muddied. On the one hand, it is apparent that the Rules of Court and in particular, Rules 37A and 37B addressing settlement offers, are not a complete code that have ousted the principles of contract law in respect of the enforcement and interpretation of settlement agreements. As Madam Justice Ross says in Thom at paras. 33 to 34:

[33] In my view, the decision in Acadia Hotels did not have the effect contended by counsel for the respondent of completely ousting the principles of mistake from a consideration of Offers to Settle.

[34] I find support for this conclusion in Craig Estates and in Vickaryous v. Vickaryous (2001), 19 R.F.L. (5th) 195, [2001] B.C.J. No. 1343, 2001 BCSC 930 (S.C.) per Garson J. In both decisions, the principles applicable to unilateral mistake were applied in relation to the acceptance of an Offer to Settle. Moreover, in 256593 B.C. Ltd., Mr. Justice Donald approved of the statement of law made by Baker J. in the Craig Estate decision.

[22] Thus, on an application for a declaration that a settlement agreement is binding on the parties, the court may apply the ordinary principles of contract law to determine the matter and grant or dismiss the application based on these principles.

[23] On the other hand, in an application to enforce a settlement agreement, the court has a broader range of remedies available to it that in an ordinary contract case, particularly because of s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act. This provision authorizes the court to grant a stay of proceeding in any cause or matter before it if it is just and fit in all of the circumstances. Alternatively, the court may exercise its discretion to leave the issue of the settlement agreement to the trial judge. As Garson J. (as she then was) says in Vickaryous v. Vickaryous, 2001 BCSC 930, 19 R.F.L. (5th) 195 at paras. 28 to 29:

[28] This application is brought pursuant to Rules 1, 2, 18A, 27 and 57 of the Rules of Court and s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act.

[29] In an application such as this, the court may grant or dismiss the application to enforce a settlement, pursuant to Rule 18A. Alternatively, pursuant to s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act the court may exercise its discretion in favour of granting a stay of the proceedings pending completion of the settlement agreement. The court also has a discretion to leave the settlement issue to be resolved at trial. (English v. Storey, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1647 (B.C.S.C.) and Hawitt v. Campbell (1983), 148 D.L.R. (3d) 341, 46 B.C.L.R. 260 (C.A.).)

[24] In Hawitt v. Campell, (1983) 148 D.L.R. (3d) 341, 46 B.C.L.R. 260 (C.A.) [Hawitt CA], , the Court of Appeal articulated the circumstances in which the court may refuse a stay of proceedings and held that the same factors should apply whether the application is for a stay of proceedings or for summary trial on the issue. These factors are described by MacFarlane J.A. in Hawitt CA at paras. 20 to 23:

[20] The judge may refuse the stay if:

1. there was a limitation on the instructions of the solicitor known to the opposite party;

2. there was a misapprehension by the solicitor making the settlement of the instructions of the client or of the facts of a type that would result in injustice or make it unreasonable or unfair to enforce the settlement;

3. there was fraud or collusion;

4. there was an issue to be tried as to whether there was such a limitation, misapprehension, fraud or collusion in relation to the settlement.

[21] Refusal of a stay would leave the parties to their remedy in the action or in an action on the settlement.

[22] My fourth point arises from an analogy between a summary application to stay, and an application for summary judgment. In either case, if there is a triable issue then the parties ought to be left to their remedy at trial.

[23] In exercising his discretion to refuse to grant a stay, a judge will consider not only whether there was the required misapprehension by the solicitor but whether the result of that would be unreasonable or unfair to the client. It is in that sense that I understand the reference to reasonableness and fairness in the authorities cited.

[25] Finally, in Robertson the Court of Appeal clarified that the judgment in Hawitt CA deals with an application for a stay of proceedings or summary relief and does not address the legal and equitable principles that ultimately govern whether the settlement is binding on the parties. The latter question is to be determined by the ordinary principles of contract law. As Lambert J.A. says in Robertson at 388:

…But the remarks made in the course of the reasons in Hawitt v. Campbell that a stay might be refused if a settlement obtained as a result of a misapprehension was unreasonable or unfair should not be regarded as introducing a rule that settlements are not binding if they are unreasonable or unfair. In my opinion, those remarks were intended to apply to the exercise of the judge’s discretion upon a summary application for a stay. A judge hearing such an application might refuse a stay, if there had been a misapprehension of instructions, on the ground that to allow it might be unjust. The result of a refusal would be to leave the parties to seek their remedies in the action, in which the settlement might be pleaded, or to seek them separately in an action on the settlement. In short, Hawitt v. Campbell deals with the considerations which apply to the judicial discretion under s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act to grant or refuse a stay. But those same considerations do not determine whether a settlement is binding or not.

[26] Applying these principles to the case at hand, I find it would be inappropriate to grant a stay of proceedings or to grant the summary relief claimed by the defendants. In my view, Mr. Burton has raised a triable issue that there was a unilateral mistake and unfair reliance upon it by the defendants. Further, he has raised a triable issue that the offer to settle was made under a misapprehension of the facts underlying the claim such that it would result in an injustice to enforce the settlement. The parties should be left to pursue their remedies in respect of the settlement agreement at the trial of the action set to commence on April 19, 2010.

Ultimately this case serves as an important reminder that great care should be taken before making a settlement offer in an ICBC Claim otherwise the consequences could cause regret.  If the parties to this lawsuit are unable to come to a resolution before the case goes to trial the presiding Judge will certainly be asked to grapple with this interesting issue.  If that occurs I will be sure to write about the reasons for judgement once they are released

Buyer’s Remorse - that’s the feeling of regret people sometimes get after making a big purchase or an important decision.  When people settle their ICBC Injury Claim they sometimes get buyer’s remorse.  They can regret the settlement and wish they could undo it.

In most circumstances an ICBC Injury Settlement can’t be set aside after a full and final release has been signed.  Sometimes though, in circumstances such as fraud or unconsionability, these settlements can be undone.

Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with an interesting issue in the context of a case alleging an unfair ICBC settlement.   In today’s case (Coates v. Triance) the legal issue was whether a Plaintiff could examine the ICBC adjuster under oath before the trial began to discuss the circumstances of a supposed settlement.

The Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 1999.  In May of 2000 the plaintiff apparently signed a full and final release.  The Plaintiff was 19 at the time.  The Plaintiff later sued the alleged at fault motorist.  That motorist was insured with ICBC.  In the Statement of Defence the defendant stated that the claim was already settled.  The Plaintiff responded that the release should be set aside because the “settlement was manifestly unfair and unconsionable”.

As the lawsuit progressed the Plaintiff’s lawyer wished to examine the ICBC adjuster involved in the settlement discussions under oath.  The ICBC adjuster refused and a Court motion was brought to compel the examination.  The motion was granted and the Court ordered that the ICBC adjuster undergo a pre-trial examination to canvass the details of the supposed settlement.  The highlights of Madam Justice Griffin’s reasons were as follows:

[5] Thus, a key factual issue in this case on the pleadings is whether a settlement and release procured by ICBC from the plaintiff, when she was 19 and unrepresented, should be set aside.  As mentioned, the witness, Ms. Lo, is the adjuster who procured the settlement, and the plaintiff’s position is that she acted inappropriately.

[6] Ms. Lo was a participant in a key factual event in question in this case.  What she knows and does not know about the circumstances of her dealings with the plaintiff and the settlement and release relates to a material issue at trial: the enforceability of that settlement and release.

[7] Sometimes it is preferable to deal with a non-party witness by written questions and answers.  But the fact that a witness is willing to proceed this way is not a complete answer to an application for a Rule 28 examination.  In this regard, I refer to the case of Cheema v. Kalkat, 2009 BCSC 736.

[8] Here there is evidence of the questions posed in writing and the written answers.  There were 200 questions.  I find the answers provided by Ms. Lo to be not responsive in a way which will help the plaintiff learn sufficient information to be able to assess the merits of the issue of whether or not there was an enforceable settlement and release.  The responses provided by Ms. Lo leave many questions unanswered on the material factual issues to which she was a witness.  Many responses are superficial and unhelpful.

[9] I conclude that if the plaintiff does not have the opportunity to examine this witness, the plaintiff cannot assess her case before trial and therefore cannot form an informed view and possibly settle the case, and the plaintiff could be taken by surprise at trial…

[14] There is no question that an examination of Ms. Lo will assist in a determination of the proceeding on the merits.  She is a key witness to events that form a central issue in the case.

[15] There is also no question that an examination of her will be just.  She is not prejudiced in any way.  Her involvement in the material events arose in the course of her employment with ICBC, which continues to be her  place of employment. Her evidence on these matters will not be personally embarrassing or tread on an area of her own personal privacy.  On the other hand, the plaintiff could be prejudiced if she is not allowed to investigate and explore Ms. Lo’s evidence in advance of trial.

[16] Here, I consider that a Rule 28 examination will be the most speedy and inexpensive way of proceeding to determine this case on its merits.  The written questions and answers exchanged already clearly reveal to me that the questions for Ms. Lo involve a scope of examination that is appropriate but that is most efficiently conducted by oral examination rather than by written questions and answers.  I am satisfied that more time will be taken up by lawyers drafting further written questions and drafting written responses than would be taken up by a Rule 28 examination…

[21] In this case, the most efficient way of proceeding so as to allow the merits of the issues in the case to be ultimately determined, would be by way of a free-flowing examination of the witness as counsel for the plaintiff sees fit, rather than requiring the plaintiff to follow the court’s checklist of acceptable and unacceptable questions.

[22] As noted in Yemen Salt Mining Corp. v. Rhodes-Vaughan Steel Ltd. (1977), 3 B.C.L.R. 90 at 100, a Rule 28 examination may extend to all that is relevant generally to all parties in the action.

[23] Therefore, in allowing the plaintiff’s application, I make no ruling on the acceptability of particular questions in the previously provided list of questions or on the validity of any objections to those questions.

Now to Cross-Reference:  Do the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules change the law relating to pre-trial examination of witnesses?  Not really.  Rule 28 is reproduced almost identically in the New Rules and can be found at Rule 7-5.  The requirements mirror the current wording of the rule so this case ought to retain it’s value as a precedent after the New Rules come into force.

Well folks, it’s that time of year again, tax time.  Time to figure out how much we’ve all earned and make sure that we pay the Government their cut.

If you settled a tort claim from a BC motor vehicle collision do you have to pay income taxes on the amount?  The short answer is no.

Generally a personal injury settlement covers a lot of areas which are not taxable, for example money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, past medical expenses, future medical expenses. and so on. Oftentimes a settlement also includes money for past/future wage loss (also known as awards for diminished capacity).  You would think this portion of a settlement would be taxable but it is not.  The reason being that there is a restriction limiting past wage loss awards from BC motor vehicle accident tort claims to “net income”.  This restriction is set out in s.98 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act which reads as follows:

You can click here to read more about the net income tax restriction for past wage loss awards in bc motor vehicle accident litigation.  As a result of s. 98 the amount of tax payable is already deducted before judgement/settlement making the money non-taxable.