ICBC Law

As previously discussed, if you are insured with ICBC the amount of Part 7 Benefits that you are entitled to must be deducted from tort trial damages due to the operation of section 83 of BC’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act.   This deduction can be made even if you don’t apply/receive your Part 7 benefits.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing this deduction with respect to various damage awards made at trial.  In this week’s case (Cikojevic v. Timm) the Plaintiff was awarded significant damages at trial after sustaining a permanent brain injury in a collision.  This week’s supplemental reasons for judgement are worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of deductibility of the following items:

• massage therapy
• chiropractic treatments
• medications
• occupational therapy
• psychological counselling
• speech therapy
• vocational counselling
• transportation costs

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, confirming that the Court cannot award double disbursements following a trial where a formal settlement offer was bested.

In this week’s case (Moore v. Kyba) the Plaintiff was awarded substantial damages in a jury trial following a motor vehicle collision.  The damages awarded exceeded both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s pre-trial formal settlement offers.  The Plaintiff brought an application seeking double costs and double disbursements.  Mr. Justice Brown held that while it was appropriate to award double costs, Rule 9-1 does not go so far as to give the Court authority to award double disbursements.  Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons:

[8] I am not convinced by the applicant’s argument.  The repeal of the definition relied on in Browne v. Lowe is not determinative and does not require its reversal.  In any event, I conclude that the proper interpretation of Rule 9-1(5) does not permit the Court to award double disbursements.  In Rule 9-1(5)(a), the rule specifically provides for disbursements, while Rule 9-1(5)(b) does not.  Therefore, properly interpreted, Rule 9-1(5)(b) does not permit the Court to award double disbursements after the delivery or service of the offer to settle.

In keeping with the ongoing trend of judicial criticism of ICBC’s ‘low velocity impact‘ defence (you can click here to access dozens of my archived posts detailing this) reasons for judgement were released earlier this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, confirming that while defendants are free to put evidence of minimal vehicle damage before the court, it likely is not a significant consideration.

In this week’s case (Gron v. Brown) the Plaintiff was involved in two rear-end collisions, the first in 2003, the second in 2008.  ICBC admitted fault on behalf of the rear drivers.  Both collisions were low velocity impacts.  ICBC stressed this evidence at trial.  Mr. Justice Brown found that despite the low impact of the crashes the Plaintiff did suffer injury.  The Court awarded $24,000 in non-pecuniary damages and provided the following practical critique of low velocity impact evidence:

[10] The defendants called two ICBC estimators, Mr. J. Hansen and Mr. J. Gali. Following the May 31, 2008 accident, they examined damage to the plaintiff’s Toyota Yaris and Mr. Godwin’s Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera.

[11] Mr. Hansen, who examined the Yaris, noticed some minor damage on the Yaris’s bumper cover and slight sheet metal distortion on the Yaris’s trunk lid.

[12] Mr. Gali, who examined the Oldsmobile, found minor damage to the strip moulding on its bumper. Mr. Godwin did not want to have it repaired.

[13] Neither estimator looked under the bumpers for damage, which, they granted, possibly could have been present.

[14] Low velocity impacts are common. Defendants often question the relationship between minimal vehicular damage and physical injuries claimed after low velocity impacts. In the case at bar, neither of the estimators ventured an opinion on the inherent potential for injury from the minimal physical damage they found after examining the vehicles nor claimed the expertise to do so, but as noted by Vickers J. at para. 15 in Kirsebom v. Russell, [1995] B.C.J. No. 359 (S.C.), the defendants are “entitled to argue in this or any other case that, because there has not been motor vehicle damage, there can be no injury.”

[15] Barrow J. endorsed this view in Makara v. Weihmann, 2005 BCSC 1757, where he said at para. 7:

[7]        I share this view. It follows that the extent of the damages to motor vehicles involved in a collision may well be relevant notwithstanding an admission of liability where the remaining issues make it so. In this case, the issues include whether the plaintiff suffered the injuries complained of in the accident or elsewhere. They include an assessment of the extent of the injuries generally. The nature of the collision is a relevant consideration in resolving these matters. It may not be a significant consideration, but it remains a relevant one. …

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, dismissing a personal injury lawsuit following a slip and fall.

In yesterday’s case (Newsham v. Canwest Trade Shows Inc.) the Plaintiff, a male stripper, slipped and allegedly injured his knee while performing at the Naughty but Nice Sex Show.  The Plaintiff sued for damages alleging he slipped due to an “oily substance on the stage floor“.  Mr. Justice Brown ultimately dismissed the claim.  In doing so the Court noted the oily substance was possibly baby oil the Plaintiff used in his own performance.  Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons:

148] With respect to the negligence claim, I find the following:

a)       The plaintiff has failed to prove the defendant breached any duty of care it owed to the plaintiff under the Occupiers Liability Act or at common law:

i.        The evidence, considered as a whole, falls short of proving on a balance of probabilities that a hazardous substance was present on the stage at the material time and was responsible for the plaintiff’s slip.

ii.        Even if the plaintiff had established that a slippery substance was the cause of his slip, it is equally likely that the slippery substance in question was residue of baby oil the plaintiff used for his performance as it was body paint left from an earlier performance on the stage.

iii.       Moreover, it is also possible that the slip was caused by the plaintiff’s prior knee injury and thus independent of any slippery substance.

iv.       Even if the plaintiff had successfully identified a slippery substance as the cause of his slip, particularly the body paint from a prior performance, he still failed to establish that its presence was caused by the failure of the defendant to provide a reasonably safe environment in which he would perform.

b)       Even if the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the defendant breached its duty of care, he would have still failed to prove the defendant’s negligence as the cause of the injury he sustained, which I find the evidence, considered as a whole, shows was just as likely precipitated by the prior condition in his right knee as by the presence of a slippery substance on which he may have slipped during his performance.

c)       I find it equally likely that any slip and resulting injury the plaintiff experienced related to the nature of his performance and the condition of his knee at the time of the performance as to the presence of a hazardous substance on the stage.

Failing to follow the obligations set out in the BC Supreme Court Rules can not only result in financial penalties, it can result in having your lawsuit outright dismissed before trial.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, demonstrating this.

In last week’s case (Balaj v. Xiaogang) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2003 collision.  She sued for damages.  The Defendant admitted being at fault for the crash.  At times the Plaintiff had a lawyer, at others she was self represented.  In the course of the lawsuit plaintiff failed to discharge her disclosure obligations under the Rules of Court and further failed to obey court orders.

ICBC ultimately applied to have the claim dismissed before trial.  In granting the order and in further ordering that the Plaintiff pay costs Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons:

[34] Given the factual background in the case at bar, it is abundantly clear, beyond any doubt, that the defendants are entitled to an order dismissing the plaintiff’s action. The plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders on several occasions, has failed to produce relevant documentation upon numerous and repeated requests by the defendants, has failed to participate in examinations for discovery in good faith, and has failed to attend court appearances, such as the recent trial management conference. Moreover, it now appears the plaintiff will seek another adjournment in these proceedings after the date of September 30, 2011, in direct contravention of my Order dated August 11, 2011.

[35] With respect to want of prosecution, I find the length of the delay in these proceedings is inordinate. Nearly nine years have passed since the accident. I also find the delay, virtually all of which has been caused by the plaintiff, is inexcusable. I find the defendants have suffered serious prejudice due to the delay in these proceedings and, on balance, justice requires dismissal of the action.

[36] With respect to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Civil Rules, the onus is on the plaintiff to present a lawful excuse for her non-compliance. I find she has failed to present a lawful excuse that is worthy of acceptance.

[37] Finally, with respect to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the direction of this Court, I also find the plaintiff has failed to present a lawful excuse for her repeated failure, either by refusal or through neglect, to comply with court orders, the most recent being my Order after the trial management conference on August 11, 2011.

[38] For these reasons, the plaintiff’s action will be dismissed under Rule 22-7 for want of prosecution, failure to comply with the Civil Rules, and failure to comply with the Order of this Court dated August 11, 2011. Although the dismissal of an action is a blunt tool that is to be used sparingly, I find the circumstances of the case at bar are such that this tool should be used. In my view, the application of Rule 22-7 in the circumstances furthers the object of the Civil Rules to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.”

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, addressing whether the Rule 15 Costs ‘cap‘ can apply to non-Rule 15 lawsuits that proceed to trial but result in judgement below $100,000.  In short the Court ruled that the cap should apply in these circumstances.

In last week’s case (Affleck v. Palmer) the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for damages.  The claim was not filed under the fast track provisions of Rule 15.  The case proceeded by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7 and was successful.  The judgement is unclear of the damages awarded but they were apparently over $25,000 under $100,000.  The summary trial lasted one day.

The Plaintiff brought an application for lump sum costs of $8,000 under Rule 15-1(15).  Mr. Justice Brown agreed that this was appropriate even though the lawsuit was not filed under the provisions of Rule 15.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:

[4] Rule 14-1(1)(f) states that costs payable under the Civil Rules or by court order must be assessed as party and party costs under Appendix B, unless:

…

(f)         subject to subrule (10) of this rule,

(i)         the only relief granted in the action is one or more of money, real property, a builder’s lien and personal property and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in which the total value of the relief granted is $100,000 or less, exclusive of interest and costs, or

(ii)        the trial of the action was completed within 3 days or less,

in which event, Rule 15-1(15) to (17) applies to the action unless the court orders otherwise.

[5] There are other exceptions under Rule 14-1(1), but subsection (f) is the significant one in this case. Rule 14-1(10), which pertains to plaintiffs who recover in this Court a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, does not apply in this case.

[6] Rule 15-1(15)(a) states a party in a fast track action is entitled to costs of $8,000, exclusive of disbursements, if the time spent on the hearing is one day or less, unless the court orders otherwise or the parties consent.

[7] I agree with the plaintiffs that although they had proceeded by way of summary trial and did not file a notice of fast track action, the wording of Rule15-1(1) governs and the action qualifies as a fast track action under Rule 15-1(1)(a) or 15-1(1)(b).

[8] As the plaintiffs point out, because they claimed various forms of relief under the Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57 [Business Corporations Act], it is arguable they were claiming more than monetary relief. Even so, the action still completed under Rule 9-7 in less than one day.

[9] The plaintiffs submit it would be appropriate for me to order $8,000 in costs. This represents the amount payable in a fast track action; and, despite the fact that the plaintiffs proceeded by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7, the plaintiffs submit an order for $8,000 in costs is appropriate in this case. I find the $8,000 set out in Rule 15-1(15)(a) is appropriate in this case.

This case is also a useful precedent because as set out in paragraph 8 the Court suggests that Rule 15 applies regardless of quantum provided the trial takes three days or less.

This case is worth reading in conjunction with the recent case of Johnson v. Axten which held that the Rule 15 costs cap can apply to pre-trial settlements of under $100,000 even if the case was not prosecuted under the fast track rule.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages of $70,000 for a serious thumb injury.

In this week’s case (Dobre v. Langley) the Plaintiff cyclist was struck by a vehicle.  He suffered a right thumb “Bennett Fracture” (a fracture at the base of the thumb where it connects with the wrist).  The Plaintiff was 20 years old at the time of injury.  He required surgery to fix the fracture.  Unfortunately the Plaintiff was left with limitations of the thumb and these were expected to continue and worsen with age with the onset of post-traumatic arthritis.  In assessing the non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons:

[58] While there are some discernible slight divergences between the opinions of Dr. Gropper and Dr. Smit, in substance they are not large ones. I accept that within the span of 15 years Mr. Dobre will experience some worsening of his degenerative arthritis that carries with it a risk that by middle age it could become severe and accompanied by a corresponding decline in function. There is also a chance Mr. Dobre could make his way into his middle age years without experiencing a significant decline in function, but the chances are greater that he will do so by then. While confident predictions about his needing future surgery are not possible, given the early onset of degenerative changes and the nature of his fracture, there is at least some risk he will require future surgery with doubtful benefit.

[59] Mr. Dobre feels dull intermittent pain at the base of his thumb, where the surgical nails were inserted. Moreover, his grip is weaker and his thumb is stiff. Prolonged grabbing and pulling brings the rapid onset of piercing pain. Prolonged writing causes discomfort and his thumb discomfort bothers him when he is writing university exams. In his part time job as a librarian, he finds he cannot hold many books when sorting them throughout the library. Due to his injury, he has to hold the books in an awkward position to avoid stressing the thumb…

[92] I find Mr. Dobre’s injuries are more akin to those in Tsougrianis, in which the 22 year old plaintiff suffered fractures to both thumbs, one of which required surgery, soft tissue injuries to her neck and back, and tendonitis.  The Court found the soft tissue injuries and tendonitis would heal within a year of the trial.  With respect to the thumb injuries, the Court found the plaintiff’s right thumb injury had largely resolved itself by trial and there was “not a substantial possibility” the left thumb injury was a permanent functional disability: Tsougrianis, at para. 35.  Furthermore, the Court found the plaintiff’s pain, strength and gripping difficulties in the left thumb would eventually disappear with exercise and further surgery, with the exception of “fine precision” handiwork:Tsougrianis, at para. 36. This is not the case for Mr. Dobre.   Given the permanence of Mr. Dobre’s right thumb disability and the likely onset of arthritis, his injuries, all factors considered, appear somewhat worse than those of the plaintiff in Tsougrianis.

[93] I find an award of $70,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in the circumstances if the $5,000 assessed for loss of home making/maintenance capacity is included in that amount. I therefore award $70,000 for non-pecuniary damages, an amount that includes a specific segment of $5,000 for loss of home making/maintenance capacity.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity.   Given the Plaintiff’s young age he had no set pattern of earnings prior to the injury.  In these cases it is more difficult to predict the consequences of injury on long term employment.  Mr. Justice Brown assessed damages of $60,000 for diminished earning capacity in doing so made some practical comments at paragraphs 65-74 of the reasons for judgement.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing the issue of fault when a cyclist is struck by a vehicle while riding their bicycle in a marked cross-walk.

In today’s case (Dobre v. Langley) the Plaintiff intended to cross Martin Drive in Surrey, BC.  He approached  a marked cross-walk, activated the pedestrian lights, mounted his bike and began to cycle across the cross-walk.  At the same time the Defendant was driving near the middle lane of Martin Drive.  She “never saw” the Plaintiff prior to impact and was “completely oblivious to his presence until after impact.“.

The court found that while the Plaintiff lost his statutory right of way by riding his bike in a cross-walk the Defendant still owed a duty of care and was in breach of this by driving carelessly.  The Plaintiff was also found 15% at fault for riding in the cross-walk.  Paragraphs 31-49 of the reasons for judgement do a good job discussing the legal principles in play in these types of cases.  In coming to a 85/15 split of fault Mr. Justice Brown provided the following useful comments:

[41] In the circumstances of this case, particularly Mr. Dobre’s decision to ride across the intersection crosswalk, which heightened his duty of care, he either should have waited longer at the curb to ensure the defendant was responding to the pedestrian warning lights, or at least have more carefully monitored the defendant’s approach to ensure he could proceed safely. Had he noticed sooner that the defendant was not reducing her speed, he likely could have gotten completely ahead of harm’s way. Mr. Dobre’s decision to ride his bike across the intersection, and his resulting heightened duty, required at least those simple steps to maximize the chances the defendant was noticing him and to ensure his own safety….

[47] By any fair measure, Mr. Dobre did exercise a considerable degree of care. He stopped at the curb, straddling the bike. He looked west and east. He saw the defendant well to the east. He mistakenly reasoned she was far enough away to give him no reason for concern, especially, he thought, with the warning the flashing lights would give. He mounted the seat. He pedalled across the intersection slowly. When he saw the defendant at the last moment, he pedalled a few hard strokes, almost succeeding in removing himself from harm’s way. Apart from his one glance in either direction before pushing the button, however, he paid no further regard to Ms. Lang’s approach.

[48] In the case at bar, Mr. Dobre, for the reasons stated, owed a heightened duty of care. The defendant, for her part, was approaching a well-marked crosswalk and, in the circumstances, should have been extra vigilant in maintaining a lookout for those who might be approaching or in the crosswalk.

[49] Considering all the circumstances, I find the apportionment that fairly reflects the parties’ relative blameworthiness is an 85/15 split in liability, favouring Mr. Dobre. Mr. Dobre will thus recover 85% of his damages, to which I now turn.

In what I believe is the first award of its kind, damages of $30,000 were recently allowed in a BC personal injury claim for the purchase medical marijuana to help manage the consequences of chronic pain.

In reasons for judgement released earlier this month (Joinson v. Heran) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant surgeon for medical malpractice.  The Plaintiff’s claim was in part successful and damages of just over $310,000 were awarded including a $30,000 cost of future care assessment for medical marijuana.  Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons setting out his legal analysis in allowing this claimed damage:

[420] As a judge of the law, I cannot make orders that directly or indirectly endorse unsanctioned accessing of medical marijuana. At the same time, my role is now to assess medical needs and necessities. It is the responsibility of Dr. Surgenor and Dr. Bright, as Mr. Joinson’s treating physicians, to address professionally these medical questions and to ensure Mr. Joinson’s medical use of marihuana complies with the rules and regulations. Ultimately, however compensation claims for medical use of marihuana, either as a special damage claim or as a future cost of care claim, must be assessed based on recommended guidelines and on costs charged by legally authorized dispensaries. All said, the foundational principle for an award of a cost of future care is that the expense must be both medically justifiable and reasonable on an objective basis. It is not enough to show merely that it is beneficial; the medical evidence must show it is reasonably necessary:Andrews v. Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 120; Aberdeen v. Langley (Township), Zanatta, Cassels, 2007 BCSC 993, at para. 198; Strachan v. Reynolds et al., 2004 BCSC 915, at para. 632.

[421] There is no bright line distinguishing mere benefit and reasonable necessity in this case. But with basic reasoning and application of the above stated legal principles it can be drawn, if roughly. Pain control and its contribution to Mr. Joinson’s ability to function to his maximum potential are core considerations here. Without use of medical marihuana or a synthetic substitute, Mr. Joinson would have to increase his use of morphine, which is detrimental, particularly to his functioning: he does not function as well, physically or mentally, without use of medical marihuana. His treating physicians endorsed this treatment option, supporting him in his use of medical marihuana. Other physicians may disagree, but his family physician and psychiatrist see him on a regular basis and, in this particular instance, are in the best place to consider what is medically necessary.

[422] The issue remains controversial and is one which more research and clinical experience must ultimately decide, or at least reveal clearer parameters for the safe and effective use of medical marihuana or its synthetic derivatives. Meanwhile, I find the medical evidence supports a finding that compensation for some medical use of marijuana is reasonably necessary in this case. However, I cannot find for compensation based on the quantity used by Mr. Joinson in his claim for exemption or on amounts he has been paying to purchase products from the TAGGS dispensary. The award will based on a maximum of 5 grams per day, and priced as if purchased from a Health Canada legally authorized source, or, alternatively, at the cost of the medically equivalent amount of a synthetic substitute such as Cesamet.

[423] Ultimately of course, any award must make allowance for the fact Dr. Heran’s errant surgery is not responsible for providing Mr. Joinson with a lifetime supply of medical marijuana, certainly not for the portion Mr. Joinson would have used for recreational purposes, irrespective of any of his surgeries. Moreover, I need to account for the medically beneficial effects of his participation in a chronic pain program, notably anticipated benefits that should help reduce his need to use pain medications….

[431] Therefore, I award $30,000 for costs of medical marihuana.

When Plaintiffs attend defence medical exams some doctors require patients to fill out questionnaires and waivers of liability.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing this area of law and concluding that Plaintiffs cannot be forced to sign waivers through the Court ordered independent medical exam process.

In today’s case (Mund v. Braun) the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision and allegedly sustained some complex injuries.  In the lawsuit the Plaintiff agreed to attend a defence medical exam with a neurologist (Dr. Makin).  Dr. Makin requested that the Plaintiff sign a waiver form indicating that the Plaintiff “will not sue Dr. Makin outside of BC.”.  As previously discussed, BC law provides doctors with a strong immunity from lawsuits arising from carelessness in the independent medical examination process.  The reason for this waiver was to apparently protect the doctor against the remote chance that the Plaintiff could sue outside of BC.  The Plaintiff refused to sign the waiver.

The Defendant brought a motion and the BC Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Plaintiff could be forced to sign such a waiver.  Mr. Justice Brown dismissed this motion finding that unless the Court of Appeal rules otherwise the law is settled that BC Courts don’t have jurisdiction to force plaintiff’s to sign such waivers.  In addressing this point Mr.  Justice Brown held as follows:

[38] In any case, on the question of requiring the plaintiff to sign the Jurisdiction agreement, I am bound by Desjardins (Litigation guardian of) v. Huser, 2010 BCSC 977; Kobzos v. Dupuis, 2006 BCSC 2047; Stead v. Brown, 2010 BCSC 312; Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands, 2003 BCCA 180; Rafferty v. Power (1993), 15 C.P.C. (3d) 48 (BCSC); and Allan-Trensholme v. Simmie, [2006] B.C.J. No. 720 (BCCA). I do not have jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to sign the Jurisdiction Agreement. On the narrow point of whether jurisdiction remains with the court under the Civil Rules to require a party to sign an authorization for documents in the possession of a third party but over which the party has sufficient control, e.g. the party’s clinical records kept by their physician, that is governed by the cited cases until such time as the Court of Appeal specifically rules on that. For now, the general question appears settled; and as for the facts at bar, in my view, the consent in this case falls squarely within the ambit of the authorities cited.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of the extent of testing that can take place during a Court ordered exam.  Dr. Mund wished to conduct electro-diagnostic testing of the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff refused.  Mr. Justice Brown held that this test was permitted and in so finding stated as follows about doctors discretion during the testing process:

[16] I accept Dr. Makin’s explanation that electro-diagnostic studies are considered an extension of neurological examinations. I find the testing is minimally invasive, and would not invade the plaintiff’s privacy…

[19]         Given the variety of causes attributed to the plaintiff’s symptoms, which include thoracic outlet syndrome, myofascial factors, soft tissue pathology in the neck and right shoulder, cervical spine disc disease with a degenerative factor and even diabetes II, diagnosis is obviously a not straight forward exercise in this case.

[20]         I am satisfied nerve conductions studies are relevant to the issues raised and the pleadings and in the medical reports written for the plaintiff. The defendant submits there is at least a possibility the plaintiff’s tingling and numbness could result from degeneration in his cervical spine or unrelated nerve problems in his right arm; and the origin and causation of his neck, shoulder and arm symptoms are related to the pleadings.

[21]         I also agree that affording Dr. Makin leeway to conduct nerve conduction studies he sees as necessary is required in order to ensure reasonable equality between the parties. The studies will not necessarily duplicate earlier ones. An electro-diagnostic study is a reasonable extension of the clinical examination if the examining physician comes to judge it necessary to form, or confirm, their professional diagnostic opinion.

[22]         Therefore, the plaintiff will submit to electro-diagnostic testing by Dr. Makin if requested to do so.