Skip to main content

Month: March 2012

The Point of No Return: More on ICBC Settlements, Finality And Consent

Written by admin on . Posted in Settlement Law.


As previously discussed (you can click here to read all my archived posts on this topic), a binding ICBC settlement can be reached even before the ‘full and final release’ is signed.  An oral contract can be the point of no return.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that once a lawyer accepts a settlement offer on behalf of a client it likely becomes too late for the client to change their mind.
In last week’s case (Truong v. Marples) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  She hired a lawyer to advance her personal injury claim.  In the course of the lawsuit ICBC’s and the Plaintiff’s lawyer agreed to a $10,000 settlement.
The Plaintiff agreed her lawyer had authority to accept the offer but argued the deal should not be binding as the offer was ambiguous as it should not have disposed of her no-fault benefits claim with ICBC.  The Court disagreed finding that a binding settlement was reached.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[20] In terms of ambiguity, I find that there was no ambiguity in the settlement.  The settlement was agreed to between Mr. Grewal and Mr. Shane and they both state that there was no ambiguity and agree on what the deal was.  Their evidence, which was not shaken at the hearing, was that they reached a settlement of all issues, including those regarding tort and Part 7 benefits.

[21] Mr. Shane and Mr. Grewal had a history of working on the opposite sides of files.  It is apparent that the two have developed experience with each other.  Mr. Shane’s testimony also indicates that he has a direct working relationship with the Burnaby litigation department of ICBC, and that an “all in” settlement always meant that it included the tort claim and Part 7 benefits.  He displayed a sound understanding of Part 7 benefits and how they interact with a person’s private health insurance.  He stated that if a settlement did not include Part 7 benefits it was his practice to note that.  I accept his evidence on this point.

[22] The Release document sent by ICBC to Mr. Shane supports the settlement asserted by Mr. Grewal and Mr. Shane.  The document states that it is a release of all defendants, and ICBC under Part 7 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation.  Mr. Shane reviewed this document, obviously found it satisfactory, and passed it on to Ms. Truong for her execution.

[23] I also accept Mr. Shane’s evidence that he always makes sure that his clients understand that the figures being proposed to settle include all potential entitlements they have from their claim which include the tort and Part 7 entitlements.  I also accept that he advised Ms. Truong, as per his practice, that prior to confirming any settlement figure with ICBC, that she would need to sign a Release, that this was not optional, or is something that she could refuse to do, and that their claim would be over.

[24] I am not persuaded that the Sharma case is particularly applicable here, given that both counsel involved in the settlement in the instant case agree as to what was settled

[25] Turning then to the question of whether the settlement was unjust and should not be sanctioned.  I have considered the various factors identified in the Pastoor case.  I am not persuaded that the circumstances justify intervention by the court.  Ms. Truong was represented by experienced counsel.  Mr. Shane provided her his opinion based on the information that he had at the time.  He knew that Ms. Truong had private health insurance, he formed a considered opinion that she had little chance of success on liability and the costs of pursuing that aspect, he had a sound understanding of Part 7 benefits, and he discussed that with Ms. Truong.  There was little evidence adduced as to what it would be in the case of Ms. Truong.  Mr. Shane in this hearing stated that it could be thousands of dollars.  Finally, he also received instructions to accept the offer.

[26] I am of the view that interfering with this settlement would do greater harm to encouraging settlement.  It would undermine the role of counsel in relation to a client, in relation to opposing counsel, and in the litigation process.

[27] The issues raised by Ms. Truong are, in my view, related to her relationship with Mr. Shane and not with the defendant.  Her remedy does not lie in having the settlement overturned.

I repeat my previous words of caution about settlement instructions.  If a lawyer enters into a binding settlement without a client’s consent the client’s remedy is against their lawyer as opposed to the Defendant in the ICBC Claim.  In the best interests of everyone involved it is vital that lawyers do not accept an ICBC settlement offer unless they have clear instructions from their clients to do so.  A best practice when giving settlement instructions to a lawyer is to do so in writing to help avoid potential complications.

Sometimes You Really Do Have to Sue Your Mother

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized.


Paul Hergott wrote a newspaper column a few years ago titled ‘sometimes you have to sue your mother‘.   Family members suing each other for compensation is more common than you may think, particularly in the context of ICBC claims.
When a motorist drives carelessly and causes injury the injured parties can sue for compensation.  ICBC’s Third Party Liability coverage typically covers these claims, even if the injured party is a relative of the at fault driver.  Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, demonstrating this reality.
In today’s case (Carson v. Henyecz) the Plaintiff was walking on her mother’s property.  She tripped and “stumbled forward bent at the waist into the middle of the asphalt driveway.“ At the same time her mother was backing up out of her driveway.  She failed to see her daughter and a collision occurred.  The Plaintiff suffered serious injuries including a fractured spine which required titanium rods and a bone graft for correction.
The Plaintiff sought compensation for her injuries from her mom’s insurer.  ICBC denied the issue of fault and forced the matter to trial.  Ultimately the Court found the Plaintiff’s mom 100% responsible for the collision.  In doing so Madam Justice Hyslop provided the following reasons:

[101] Looking at the photographs of the asphalt driveway (no measurements were taken as to its width or length), the Subaru struck Ms. Carson in the lower part of the upper half of the driveway. Mrs. Henyecz had an obligation throughout this entire manoeuvre; that is reversing down this long driveway, to be aware of what was behind her. Her obligation was to place her body in such a position that she would observe out of the rear-view window, her driver’s rear-view mirror and driver’s side mirror, the asphalt driveway until such a time that she would reach Singh Street, enter Singh Street, and then change direction.

[102] I infer from all of the evidence that Ms. Carson was visible before she stumbled and she certainly was visible when she stumbled onto the asphalt driveway. From all of the evidence that is before me, I conclude that as Mrs. Henyecz commenced reversing the Subaru down the asphalt driveway, she took no steps to determine whether she could reverse the Subaru down the driveway in safety.

[103] I conclude that had Mrs. Henyecz taken the precautions as she started her reversal and continued her reversal down the asphalt driveway, Mrs. Henyecz would have seen her daughter both before and after her daughter stumbled into the asphalt driveway.

[104] I find that Mrs. Henyecz breached her duty of care to Ms. Carson by failing to make all the observations that she could perform as she reversed down the asphalt driveway. Ms. Carson was out on the driveway to be seen.

[105] I conclude that Mrs. Henyecz was not driving at an excessive speed. The speed of the vehicle is not the issue here.

[106] Mrs. Henyecz alleges that Ms. Carson was negligent in that she stumbled. Ms. Carson’s stumble is not material. Ms. Carson’s stumble is not the cause of the accident. The cause of the accident is the failure of Mrs. Henyecz to position herself and make observations in such a way that as she reversed she was aware of what was on the asphalt driveway.

[107] The defence made reference to Rinta and the facts of that case. Counsel for Mrs. Henyecz suggested that these facts gave the driver a great deal more warning compared to the facts in this case. However, in the appeal court it is not the facts that are being appealed, it is as Mr. Justice Lambert said:

[8] … The Supreme Court of Canada said that it was improper for this court to interfere with a finding of negligence or no negligence made by a trial judge unless there was an error in law, or it was clear that some evidence had not been understood or had been ignored. …

[108] I have already concluded in my analysis of the law that this is not a situation where a pedestrian must not leave the curb or a place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle so that it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right-of-way. If s. 179 of the MVA applied to private property, I conclude that it is not relevant as under s. 179 the driver of the motor vehicle is driving forward and not in reverse.

[109] I conclude that Mrs. Henyecz breached her duty to Ms. Carson and was negligent when she reversed her motor vehicle down the asphalt driveway and hit Ms. Carson. I find Mrs. Henyecz is 100% responsible for the accident.

Bus Driver Liable For Injuries Caused by Hard Braking

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 99 Comments on Bus Driver Liable For Injuries Caused by Hard Braking


As previously discussed, a collision is not necessary in order for a motorist to be responsible for personal injuries caused to others.  This was demonstrated again in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In this week’s case (Prempeh v. Boisvert) the Plaintiff was a passenger on a bus operated by the Defendant.  The Defendant “vigorously and abruptly applied the brakes to avoid a collision with the two vehicles which had stopped ahead of him“.  This caused the plaintiff, who was standing holding a metal handle, to be thrown down the aisle.  The Plaintiff was injured in the process.
The Plaintiff alleged the driver was negligent in braking hard.  The Defendant disagreed arguing this action was necessary to avoid collision.  Ultimately Madam Justice Dardi found the driver fully liable for the incident for driving without due care an attention.  In assessing the driver at fault the Court provided the following reasons:

[22] Mr. Boisvert was required to brake hard to avoid hitting the two vehicles that had stopped on the roadway in front of the bus he was operating. The first of the vehicles had stopped to turn left on Hamilton Street. The second car stopped behind the left-turning vehicle without a collision and without accompanying honking or screeching of brakes. It can reasonably be inferred that this occurred within a time frame that should have permitted a reasonably prudent user of the road driving behind those vehicles an opportunity to react and brake without incident. The application of the brakes was not a reaction to an emergency or unexpected hazard.

[23] Moreover, Mr. Boisvert properly conceded that, regardless of an abrupt or unexpected stop of a vehicle ahead, in order to prevent accidents prudence mandates that at all times a bus driver drive defensively and maintain a safe cushion or certain distance from a vehicle travelling in front of the bus. This is precisely to be able to stop safely in the event of an unexpected manoeuvre by that vehicle.

[24] I cannot find with precision whether the sudden and hard application of the brakes occurred because Mr. Boisvert was travelling too rapidly, not maintaining a diligent look-out or because he failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him. However, in weighing all of the evidence I have concluded that Mr. Boisvert’s sudden and vigorous application of the brakes, in the context of all the circumstances in this case, establishes a prima facie case of negligence against Mr. Boisvert. It is not conduct attributable to a reasonably prudent bus driver.

[25] Having found a prima facie case of negligence the onus is upon the defendants to establish that Mr. Boisvert was not negligent or that the incident was attributable to some specific cause consistent with the absence of negligence on his part.

[26] I note that Mr. Boisvert’s assertion at his examination for discovery that he could have stopped smoothly but the bus brakes on the new trolley bus “grabbed” and caused a “hard stop” is no answer to this claim.

[27] Mr. Boisvert was an experienced bus driver. The plaintiff was entitled to expect that he would operate the bus in a safe, proper and prudent manner. The plaintiff cannot be expected to assume any risk associated with the operation of the vehicle which could not reasonably be anticipated by a passenger. The usual braking of a driver as he moves through traffic would not cause a passenger to be thrown to the floor so violently. Moreover it is well established on the authorities that the responsibility of a public carrier extends to ensuring that its modes of conveyance permit the bus to be operated in a safe and proper manner: Visanji at para. 32.

[28] I have considered all of the authorities provided by both parties. Though useful as providing guidance on the governing principles, each case turns on its own facts. I note that unlike the circumstances in Lalani v. Wilson, [1988] B.C.J. No. 2408 (Q.L.) (S.C.), upon which the defendant relies, the bus driver here was aware that the plaintiff had fallen – the possibility of injury was self-evident. Mr. Boisvert’s attention was drawn to such a possibility at the time of the incident and in compliance with the bus operator training manual he should have recorded all pertinent information regarding the incident. While the court in Lalani found it would have been unfair to shift the burden, this is not so in this case.

[29] On balance I am not satisfied that the defendants have shown that Mr. Boisvert conducted himself in a reasonable and careful manner consistent with the high duty of care imposed on those engaged in public transit. In the result, I conclude that Mr. Boisvert, however fleetingly, breached the standard of care of a reasonably prudent bus driver. I find the defendants negligent.

Oiled Stripper Loses Slip and Fall Lawsuit

Written by admin on . Posted in Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized. 46 Comments on Oiled Stripper Loses Slip and Fall Lawsuit

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.