Month: February 2015

Complaints Made to Police Prior to Charges Can Be Defamatory

Written by admin on February 11, 2015. Posted in Uncategorized. 59 Comments on Complaints Made to Police Prior to Charges Can Be Defamatory

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal finding that complaints made to the police prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings are subject to qualified, not absolute, privilege and therefore can be used as the foundation of a defamation action.
In today’s case (Caron v. A.) the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant (appellant) “went to the RCMP where [the appellant] falsely accused (the Plaintiff) of rape“.
The Plaintiff was not charged. The Plaintiff then sued the Defendant for defamation. The Defendant sought to dismiss the claim arguing that statements made to police are subject to absolute privilege and cannot be used in a defamation lawsuit. The BC Court of Appeal disagreed finding that such statements made prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings were only protected by qualified privilege and, as such, if the dominant motive for publishing the statement is actual or express malice the statements could be used in a defamation lawsuit. In reaching this decision the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

[15] Qualified privilege applies when there is a “duty, legal, social or moral, to publish the matter complained of to persons with a corresponding duty or interest to receive it”: Pressler v. Lethbridge (2000), 86 B.C.L.R. (3d) 257 at 296 (C.A). The legal effect of the defence of qualified privilege is to “rebut the inference, which normally arises from the publication of defamatory words, that they were spoken with malice. . . . However, the privilege is not absolute and can be defeated if the dominant motive for publishing the statement is actual or express malice”: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 144. In short, where there is a public or shared interest in support of the statement both being made and received, a defendant cannot be held to have defamed a plaintiff unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant made the alleged publication for a malicious purpose.

[16] Absolute privilege, on the other hand, provides a complete defence in cases of alleged defamatory publications, even if the defendant published the statement with actual malice. Traditionally, absolute privilege was granted to any “communications which take place during, incidental to, and the processing and furtherance of, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings”: Elliott v. Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau, 2005 NSCA 115 at para. 112, citing Raymond E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, (Toronto: Carswell, 1999) at para. 12.4(1)…

[37] In summary, the law in Canada, at least at the trial level, appears to be quite consistent that only a qualified, and not an absolute, privilege applies to initial complaints made to the police before the commencement of judicial proceedings. Trial level decisions in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia, while not binding on this Court, have all reiterated this principle.

[38] The appellant can therefore only succeed on the issue of absolute privilege if this Court were to expand the defence so as to include complaints to the police. This is a step further than any jurisdiction in Canada has, as of yet, gone. The appellant argues that such an expansion is justified on the basis of public policy…

[52] In my opinion, the appellant is asking this Court to expand the defence of absolute privilege beyond its current borders in Canadian law. There is some precedent for such an expansion in English and U.S. law. The onus for justifying such an expansion is on the appellant, and the test the appellant must meet is as described by Cromwell J.A. in Elliott: The expansion must be found to be necessary in order to protect the proper administration of justice.

[53] In my opinion, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make such a determination at this time, without the benefit of an evidentiary record.

[54] Statements to police prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings are protected by qualified privilege, not absolute privilege, under Canadian law. In order to expand the defence of absolute privilege, the appellant must show that such an expansion is necessary in order to protect the administration of justice. The appellant cannot meet that onus in the current appeal, as there is no evidentiary record with which to support her argument or suggest that an expansion to absolute privilege, rather than an application of qualified privilege, is necessary in order to protect the proper administration of justice: Northwest Organics v. Maguire, 2014 BCCA 454.

[55] I would dismiss the appeal on this issue.

$90,000 For Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries Leading to Chronic Pain Disorder

Written by admin on February 6, 2015. Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archived cases addressing non-pecuniary damages for chronic pain, reasons for judgement were released today dealing with such a condition following a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Roth v. Hes) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2011 collision. The Defendant admitted fault. The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries which led to a chronic pain condition. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Bowden provided the following reasons:

[82] The plaintiff is a 40-year-old woman and suffered soft tissue injuries primarily in her back and shoulder area. She continues to suffer from chronic pain disorder and experiences sleeping difficulties. She has a pre-accident history of lower back and right knee pain complaints which would likely have continued even if the accident had not occurred.

[83] The plaintiff’s lifestyle has suffered as a result of the accident. While I consider her to be far from totally disabled, she has lost the enjoyment of working on her and her husband’s hobby farm and the lifestyle that it provided to her. To some extent, as stated by Dr. Laidlow, this has resulted from the plaintiff becoming overly protective in relation to her injuries. With continuing appropriate rehabilitation and treatment I expect that the plaintiff’s condition will improve and she will gradually return to some of her hobbies around her property.

[84] I do not accept the plaintiff’s argument that the garden and animals cared for by her and her husband were more than a hobby. It matters not that the garden and animals provided some food for them. The use of their property by the plaintiff and her husband was simply a hobby and I so find.

[85] Before the accident the plaintiff enjoyed a number of outdoor activities. Since the accident she has not been able to participate in physically demanding activities like motorcycle riding, archery and hiking. There is the prospect that she may find less physically demanding but enjoyable hobbies.

[86] The plaintiff has been unable to perform a number of household chores that she could before the accident. Her social life has been impacted by the accident as she has been unable to entertain guests for dinner parties as she did in the past. She and her husband have also not enjoyed the intimacy they experienced before the accident.

[87] Both parties provided me with a number of cases dealing with similar facts that supported the amount of damages that they consider to be appropriate. In the end however, each case must be decided on its own facts.

[88] Considering the factors enumerated in Stapley, I find $90,000 to be an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages.

Defence Doctor's "Bald Proposition" Minimizing Collision Related Injuries Rejected

Written by admin on February 5, 2015. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, rejecting defense expert evidence minimizing the connection of chronic pain issues to a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Worobetz v. Fooks) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2010 collision and continued to experience symptoms at the time of trial. The defendant admitted fault but denied the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries. In support of his case the Defendant retained a physician who gave evidence that the Plaintiff’s lingering symptoms were likely related to deconditioning and being overweight. In rejecting this evidence Mr. Justice Joyce provided the following critical comments:

[91] Dr. Grypma’s opinion appears to be based substantially on two things: first, the lack of evidence of any structural injury; and second, her lack of conditioning and mild obesity. Dr. Grypma suggests that if Ms. Worobetz had suffered an injury other than a mild soft tissue injury, she would have experienced immediate pain of such intensity that she would have sought out immediate attention at an emergency room. I am not persuaded, however, that a person need sustain a serious structural injury in order to develop serious and chronic pain following a trauma such as an Accident. There are simply too many cases where persons have been found to have developed chronic back pain following a motor vehicle accident in the absence of objective evidence of structural damage to accept Dr. Grypma’s bald proposition.

[92] Dr. Grypma’s opinion that Ms. Worobetz suffered only a mild injury that would have healed completely within a few months is contradicted by the evidence of Ms. Worobetz concerning her symptoms and how they affected her functioning, which is supported by the evidence of a number of other specialists who have treated Ms. Worobetz and followed her progress over a long period of time.

[93] In my opinion, it is a relevant factor that Ms. Worobetz developed her pain complaints very soon after the Accident and that they progressed, with little change, until the present time. I accept that a mere temporal connection between an accident and the development of pain is not determinative by itself that the Accident caused the pain, but it is, nonetheless, a relevant factor. I also accept that the court must be cautious in relying on the subjective complaints of a patient, where there is no other objective evidence to support those complaints.

[94] However, in this case, there is more evidence than simply subjective complaints and a temporal connection between those complaints and the Accident. I accept that Ms. Worobetz’s symptoms of pain are real and honestly felt. The manner in which they have impacted her functioning is supported by evidence of her husband, mother, co-worker and the woman for whom Ms. Worobetz acts as a support teacher. There is a strong body of expert opinion evidence in this case from specialists in a number of fields to support a finding that Ms. Worobetz’s ongoing pain was caused by the Accident. Those specialists have spent a great deal of time examining Ms. Worobetz, investigating her complaints and providing treatment. In my respectful view, their evidence is to be preferred over that of Dr. Grypma, who conducted a single, rather brief examination and a review of her medical records.

[95] Dr. MacInnes, in particular, puts forward an explanation as to how Ms. Worobetz could have developed the pain at various sites in her body as a result of a rather modest soft tissue injury that one would ordinarily think would resolve quite quickly: central sensitization. Dr. Grypma admits that he is not qualified to comment on that topic, so he is not able to agree or disagree that it is a reasonable explanation for Ms. Worobetz’s continuing symptoms.

[96] In summary, I find that but for the Accident, Ms. Worobetz would not be suffering the ongoing symptoms that she feels and her daily activities of life and ability to work would not be affected the way they are. She is less able to enjoy the social and recreational pursuits that she used to enjoy. She is less able to carry out the functions of a mother and wife, compared to her life before the Accident. She no longer has the same ability to work at her chosen career as a teacher because of the Accident.

BC Court of Appeal Criticizes Consultation Reports Being Shoehorned As Expert Reports

Written by admin on February 3, 2015. Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Civil Procedure. 112 Comments on BC Court of Appeal Criticizes Consultation Reports Being Shoehorned As Expert Reports

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Court of Appeal criticizing and restricting the practice of shoehorning physicians consultation reports into evidence as expert opinion.
In today’s case (Healey v. Chung) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 pedestrian/vehicle collision. At trial he Plaintiff claimed it was a ‘catastrophic accident’ and sought damages between $485,000 and $1,037,000. The trial judge rejected much of the Plaintiff’s evidence and awarded damages of just over $50,000.
In the course of the trial the Defendant introduced consultation reports of treating medical practitioners into evidence. These did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 11-6. The Plaintiff objected but the trial judge allowed the reports to be entered. In finding this was improper and ordering a new trial the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

[19] It is well established that clinical consulting reports, without more, may not be admitted for the validity of opinions expressed in them…

[21] It is true, as the respondent contends, that Seaman and F.(K.E.) are cases in which the opinion sought to be adduced was found in clinical records that were voluminous, but I do not consider that circumstance detracts from the principle that a clinical record containing an opinion, such as these consulting reports, must substantially comply with the requirements of the Rules in order to attract the exception to the usual rule for examination of witnesses spoken of by Mr. Justice Hutcheon.

[22] The respondent contends that she gave notice to Mr. Healey of her intention to use the letters, that Dr. Kuo knew of the qualifications of the two doctors, and that other deficiencies were “minor”. She says Mr. Healey was obliged to express his objections as required by R. 11-6(10) and (11).

[23] Forthrightness between counsel is favoured and is to be expected in litigation. Yet I cannot say there was anything to which we have been referred that put the positive legal duty on Mr. Healey to object under those Rules for the reason that the consulting reports sent to Dr. Kuo and disclosed as part of her clinical records were simply not ‘expert reports’ as regulated by the Rules. While they may be professional opinions from one doctor to another in the course of treatment, the impugned documents do not comply with R. 11-2; I do not consider they carry the basic hallmark of an ‘expert report’, being an opinion intended by the author, at some point, to be presented for the assistance of the court. Significantly, they contain none of the information that is essential to qualification of the author as an expert, nor the information reviewed by the author by which the court may assess the cogency of the opinion.

[24] As I do not consider that these clinical records can be considered to be ‘expert reports’ as that term is used in the Rules, entitled to the privileged treatment for receipt of hearsay evidence discussed by Mr. Justice Hutcheon, I conclude that R. 11-6(10) and (11) did not require a notice of objection.

[25] In the alternative to the two documents coming within R. 11-6, Ms. Chung says the judge could have exercised his discretion and admitted the documents as opinions under R. 11-7. Rule 11-7 provides latitude to a judge to receive opinion evidence that is not included in an expert report:

(1) Unless the court otherwise orders, opinion evidence of an expert, other than an expert appointed by the court under Rule 11-5, must not be tendered at trial unless

(a) that evidence is included in a report of that expert that has been prepared and served in accordance with Rule 11-6, and

(b) any supplementary reports required under Rule 11-5 (11) or 11-6 (5) or (6) have been prepared and served in accordance with Rule 11-6 (5) to (7).

…

(6) At trial, the court may allow an expert to provide evidence, on terms and conditions, if any, even though one or more of the requirements of this Part have not been complied with, if

(a) facts have come to the knowledge of one or more of the parties and those facts could not, with due diligence, have been learned in time to be included in a report or supplementary report and served within the time required by this Part,

(b) the non-compliance is unlikely to cause prejudice

(i) by reason of an inability to prepare for cross-examination, or

(ii) by depriving the party against whom the evidence is tendered of a reasonable opportunity to tender evidence in response, or

(c) the interests of justice require it.

[Emphasis added.]

[26] Ms. Chung does not contend the judge exercised his discretion under R. 11-7(1). Her approach is consistent with the record that shows the judge was not asked to exercise his discretion, and it is consistent with Ms. Chung’s submission at trial which approached the question as one of compliance with R. 11-6. We are invited, however, to approach these documents as admissible in the exercise of discretion.

[27] I do not consider that this is an appropriate case for us to engage for the first time in a full analysis of discretion, so as to draw our own conclusions. At trial the judge did not consider his R. 11-7 discretion and accordingly the possibility of exercising discretion is without his expansion. In XY, LLC v. Zhu, 2013 BCCA 352, 366 D.L.R. (4th) 443, Madam Justice Newbury for the Court adopted this description from Perry v. Vargas, 2012 BCSC 1537 at para. 22:

In my view the discretion provided for in R.11-7(6)(c) must be exercised sparingly, with appropriate caution, and in a disciplined way given the express requirements contained in Rules 11-6 and 11-7. That is, the “interests of justice” are not a reason to simply excuse or ignore the requirements of the other Rules. There must be some compelling analysis why the interests of justice require in a particular case the extraordinary step of abrogating the other requirements of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. None was provided.

[28] Adopting that approach, in my view this is not a case for us to exercise the discretion that was available to the judge under R. 11-7. There was ample medical evidence before the court, absent the opinions from these documents, to guide the trial judge in findings of fact. Further, it was open to the defendant to develop her own body of medical opinion and to advance it in proper form, including as to the required description of qualifications and experience and listing of opinion sought and matters considered. I see no compelling reason to derogate from the requirements of either R. 11-2 or R. 11-6 in this case. To do so, in my view, would admit into evidence opinions that were not crafted for that purpose and that are without the necessary information to permit consideration of their substance and effect in the context of the issues before the court.

[29] Last, Ms. Chung contends that the two documents, in any event, were inconsequential in the judge’s reasons, and thus the admission of these documents had little impact on the outcome of the case.

[30] One of the issues at trial was the assertion by Mr. Healey that he suffered from depression caused by the accident. This allegation bore upon the assessment of damages. To support this allegation was an expert report from Dr. O’Shaughnessy. Based upon the medical records and his interview with Mr. Healey, Dr. O’Shaughnessy diagnosed Mr. Healey as having an Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. Yet the judge rejected all allegations of depression and instead relied upon the two consulting reports, saying:

[58] Mr. Healey stated that he suffered from depression because of the accident. Depression was not reported in his post-accident symptomatology until 2008. Dr. Kuo’s records do show that in 2003 she concluded that Mr. Healey had symptoms consistent with depression. This reporting, however, preceded the accident, and according to the psychiatric specialists Dr. Kuo referred Mr. Healey to in 2009 and 2010, no evidence supported any Axis 1 diagnosis in the DSM-IV, and no symptoms met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.

[31] I would first observe that Dr. Truong’s report cryptically states “Axis 1: Adjustment d/o with depressive symptoms – in remission” and by so saying Dr. Truong’s report appears to be inconsistent with the judge’s statement: “according to the psychiatric specialists [Dr. To and Dr. Truong] no evidence supported any Axis 1 diagnosis”. Perhaps this exemplifies the effect of non-compliance with the requirements for expert reports, as the judge drew from the report a categorical absence of any Axis 1 diagnosis which appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Truong’s report. Setting that discrepancy between the judge’s assertion and the notation in Dr. Truong’s report aside, it is clear from the judge’s para. 58 that he put weight on the consulting reports and drew conclusions from them adverse to Mr. Healey. In other words, they were consequential in the judge’s reasoning; one cannot say the reports had little bearing on the outcome, in my view.

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Neck and Shoulder Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on February 2, 2015. Posted in ICBC Shoulder Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic and plateaued soft tissue injuries.
In today’s case (Mothe v. Silva) the Plaintiff was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer operated by the Defendant. Fault was admitted. The Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck and shoulder and his symptoms persisted to the time of trial and were expected to continue. The Plaintiff suffered other symptoms which cased some hardship in his life but the court found these were unrelated to the collision. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Madam Justice Ross provided the following reasons:

[106] I agree with the submission of the defendants that the functional limitations described in Mr. Shew’s analysis are either in whole or in large part the consequence of the chronic left wrist problems stemming from the Workplace Injury or the consequence of the C7 radiculopathy. I have found that the motor vehicle accident did not cause or contribute to this condition. However, Mr. Mothe does suffer neck and shoulder pain and headaches as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident. With respect to these injuries, his recovery has plateaued and the condition is chronic. These injuries have not, with the modest exception discussed below, prevented Mr. Mothe from working but he does so in pain. These injuries have contributed to fatigue and a discouraged, pessimistic outlook. They have reduced his enjoyment of recreational activities and his family life.

[107] In all of the circumstances, I award $40,000 for non-pecuniary loss.