ICBC Law

Reasons for judgement were released today dismissing a defence applicaiton seeking ‘particulars of the Plaintiff’s wage loss and loss of capacity claims“.

The Plaintiff was invovled in a motor vehicle accident. A Statement of Claim was filed in BC Supreme Court suing for, amongst other things ‘loss of earnings, past and prospective, loss of income earning capacity, loss of opportunity to earn income”

A statement of Defence was filed. The Defendant then examined the Plaintiff for discovery and requested that the Plaintiff provdie ‘particulars of the wage-loss claim being advanced and loss of capacity claim”. The Plaintiff lawyer did not appear to agree to this request.

In dismissing the motion Master Baker noted that this was not truly a a request for particulars, rather this was a motion seeking evidence. The Court held that this motion should have been brought further to Rule 27 of the BC Rules of Court (the rule dealing with examinaitons for discovery) rather then pursuant to Rule 19 (the rule dealing with pleadings).

Master Baker made some interesting comments implying that such a motion may not be succesful even if brought pursuant to Rule 27 because such requests for evidence may be objectionable as being ‘too vague or speculative‘.

Tags: bc personal injury lawyer, examination for discovery, ICBC claims, icbc examination for discovery, icbc lawyer

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm and is filed under Civil Procedure. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.