Skip to main content

Author: admin

Driver Found at Fault for Crash for Having High Beams On – Psychological Injuries Discussed

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

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dealing with the issue of fault in a BC Car Crash, specifically if a driver could be found at fault for having high beams on making it difficult for other motorists to see.
In today’s case (Scott v. Erickson) the Plaintiff was injured when she drove her vehicle off a road and over an embankment in southeastern British Columbia.  Before losing control the Plaintiff was driving a pick up truck Southbound on the highway.  At the same time the Defendant was driving Northbound on the same highway and crossed the road to stop at the community mailboxes in a pullout adjacent to the southound lane.  While retrieving his mail his SUV was off the road to the right of the Plaintiff’s lane of travel.
The Defendant’s vehicle was facing the Plaintiff’s with its high-beams on.  The Plaintiff thought the Defendant’s vehicle was in the oncoming lane so she tried to keep to the right of the Defendant’s vehicle.  Of course there was nothing but an embankment to the right of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle flipped down into the ditch. Mr. Justice Smith found the Defendant 100% at fault for this collision.  In coming to this conclusion Mr. Justice Smith reasoned as follows:

The question is whether the defendant was in breach of the common law duty of care that he owed to other drivers in the circumstances. It is trite law that, apart from specific statutory provisions, every operator of a motor vehicle owes a common law duty to take reasonable care for the safety other users of the highway.  What constitutes reasonable care in a given case depends on what is reasonable in the circumstances.

[25] Those circumstances included the fact that, although he was not parked on the roadway, the defendant knew or should have known that he was close enough to it that his headlights to be visible to oncoming traffic. He also knew or should have known that there were no streetlights or other sources of light that would help oncoming drivers determine the position of his vehicle.

[26] In those circumstances, it was reasonably foreseeable that an approaching driver seeing the defendant’s headlights would assume they were the lights of an oncoming vehicle in the northbound lane and would attempt to ensure that she stayed to the right of that vehicle….

I find that if the defendant had properly turned his mind to the potential hazard he was creating, the proper course would have been to turn off his headlights. If the absence of light from his headlights would have made it more difficult for the defendant to find and open his mailbox, that problem could have been solved with the simple use of a small flashlight.

[29] The hazard created by the defendant in stopping as he did was aggravated by the fact his lights were on high beam, further interfering with the ability of the plaintiff to properly see and assess the situation…

I find that, by leaving his lights on high beam, the defendant was in further breach of his common law duty of care. Whether or not he was stopped on a portion of the highway, the defendant clearly knew or ought to have known that he was stopped close enough to the travelled road surface that his headlights would be shining toward oncoming drivers and the vision of those drivers could be impaired if the lights were on high beam.

[33] I therefore conclude that, in stopping his car in the position he did with his headlights not only illuminated but on high beam, the defendant breached his duty of care.

In addition to the rather unique circumstances of liability, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of quantum of damages.

Mr. Justice Smith found that the Plaintiff suffered from fairly “minor” physical injuries.  Despite this she went on to suffer from various cognitive difficulties.

The Plaintiff alleged these were due to a brain injury.  Mr. Justice Smith concluded that no brain injury occured in the crash, instead the Plaintiff’s cognitive difficulties were due to a ‘psychological response‘ to the accident.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $85,000 Mr. Justice Smith noted that while a brain injury did not occur, brain injury precedents were useful guides in valuing the Plaintiff’s loss as her diminished functioning mirrored post concussive symptoms in many ways.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith noted as follows:

[107]     The plaintiff has suffered a persistent psychological reaction to her accident, which has clearly affected her ability to function as she once did in both social and professional settings. She has difficulties with memory and concentration, has difficulty functioning in groups and has suffers from a lack of energy and confidence. She is, in important respects, no longer the person she was and is unable to enjoy most aspects of life as she previously did. However, I have found that she does not have any organic brain injury and her condition is more likely than not to be treatable with the proper interventions.

[108]     Although I did not find the plaintiff to have mild traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder, the impact that her psychological condition has had on her life is in many ways similar to what is seen in cases involving those conditions. Those cases therefore can provide some useful guidance in assessing damages…

[112] I have considered those and other cases referred to, but of course each case must be decided on its own facts and on the need to compensate that plaintiff for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The accident in this case has had psychological consequences that have, to date, significantly interfered with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of life, her ability to function in both social and occupational settings, and her general sense of self worth. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering were short-lived, she has failed to prove that she suffered an organic brain injury, and the condition she has proved is one from which she is likely to fully recover with proper treatment. Taking all of those factors into account, I find $85,000 to be an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages.

More on Low Velocity Impacts and a Legal History Lesson

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Shoulder Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 1 Comment on More on Low Velocity Impacts and a Legal History Lesson

Yet another “Low Velocity Impact” Injury Claim went to trial and yet again the Court found that a compensable injury existed despite the minimal vehicle damage.
In today’s case (Bourdin v. Ridenour) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 Car Crash in Kamloops, BC.  This was a crash that apparently fell into ICBC’s LVI Program as the minimal amount of vehicle damage was stressed at trial by the defence lawyer (the Plaintiff’s vehicle damage cost only $316 to repair). Despite this Madam Justice Hyslop found that the Plaintiff was injured in the crash.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $22,500 the Court summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[87] Ms. Bourdin had constant pain for approximately five months after the accident.  However, she acknowledged some improvement during that period.  She was plagued with headaches, the severity of which she had never experienced before.  Dr. Vlahos’ clinical records note that Ms. Bourdin, on February 8, 2008, complained of having a “…new onset of headaches.  Head feels like it is in a vise”.  This description is a similar description of the headaches Ms. Bourdin suffered as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

[88] I do accept that Ms. Bourdin suffered from headaches and that they occurred as a result of the accident.  She has been nauseous and vomited with such headaches, the last of which was two weeks before this trial.  According to Ms. Bourdin, headaches of this nature occurred after the accident.  However, Ms. Bourdin did not describe headaches of this nature to either Dr. O’Farrell or Dr. Travlos.

[89] Ms. Bourdin’s neck, shoulder and mid-back were injured as a result of the accident.  She continues to suffer pain from these injuries today, but they are occasional.  At trial, Ms. Bourdin stated that her neck and shoulder pain are now triggered when she is reaching for something, and sometimes everyday events caused neck and shoulder pain without explanation.  She acknowledged improvement in the spring of 2006 and that this has been ongoing from 2006 to the date of trial.  Her chiropractors, her massage therapists and her comments to Dr. O’Farrell and Dr. Travlos confirm this.  She told Dr. O’Farrell that at the time he examined her, her pain was intermittent.

In discussing the LVI Defence to Injury Claims Madam Justice Hyslop quoted a 2006 case (Jackman v. All Season Labour Supplies Ltd.) in which Mr. Justice Smith of the BC Supreme Court pointed out that the LVI defence is not a principle of law but rather “a creature of policy created by ICBC“.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith held

[12]      On the issue of vehicle damage, I note the comments of Madam Justice Ballance in Robbie v. King 2003 BCSC 1553, at paragraph 35:

The proposition that a low velocity accident is more or less likely to have a propensity of injury is a creature of policy created by ICBC. Although lack of impact severity is by no means determinative of the issue as to whether a person could have sustained an injury, it is nonetheless a relevant consideration particularly with respect to soft tissue injury. Ultimately, the extent of Ms. Robbie’s injuries are to be decided on the evidence as a whole.

[13]      Although lack of vehicle damage may be a relevant consideration, it has to be balanced against the evidence of the plaintiff and the medical evidence, including the complete lack of any medical evidence to support the assertion that the injuries are inconsistent with vehicle damage.

Now for the legal history lesson:

While it is well accepted by BC Courts that ICBC’s LVI Policy is not a legal defense to a tort claim, rather, vehicle damage is just “a relevant consideration” ICBC Defence Lawyers often quote a 1982 case from the BC Supreme Court (Price v. Kostryba) in which Mr. Justice McEachern quoted another BC Supreme Court decision (Butlar v. Blaylock) in which the Court held that:

I am not stating any new principle when I say that the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery…

An injured person is entitled to be fully and properly compensated for any injury or disability caused by a wrongdoer. But no one can expect his fellow citizen or citizens to compensate him in the absence of convincing evidence — which could be just his own evidence if the surrounding circumstances are consistent — that his complaints of pain are true reflections of a contuining injury.

However, this often cited quote comes from a case that was overturned on appeal.  In 1983 the BC Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision of Blaylock and held as follows:

12 With the greatest respect, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence upon which one could reasonably conclude that the appellant did not continue to suffer pain as of the date of the trial. After careful consideration of the expert testimony and the evidence of the appellant and his wife, I have reached the conclusion that the only finding open to the learned trial judge was that as of the date of trial the appellant continued to suffer moderate pain and in the words of Dr. Lehmann, his symptoms “will gradually subside with further time. Having been present for approximately two and a half years, it is doubtful that they will disappear completely.” (underlining mine).

13 There are three basic reasons which, in my view, support the conclusion that the plaintiff continued to suffer pain as of the date of trial. Firstly, the plaintiff testified that he continued to suffer pain. His wife corroborated this evidence. The learned trial judge accepted this evidence but held that there was no objective evidence of continuing injury. It is not the law that if a plaintiff cannot show objective evidence of continuing injury that he cannot recover. If the pain suffered by the plaintiff is real and continuing and resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. There is no suggestion in this case that the pain suffered by the plaintiff did not result from the accident. I would add that a plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for pain, even though the pain results in part from the plaintiff’s emotional or psychological makeup and does not result directly from objective symptoms.
14 Secondly, all of the medical reports support the view that the plaintiff continued to suffer pain and that it was not likely that his symptoms would disappear completely.

15 Thirdly, and of great importance, is the report of Dr. Lehmann, which was not before the learned trial judge for his consideration. In that report, Dr. Lehmann stated that there were degenerative changes in the cervical spine which pre-existed the accident. He said “they were probably asymptomatic before the accident but I think are probably contributing to his prolonged discomfort.” (underlining mine). In my view, as this evidence is uncontradicted, these objective findings cannot be disregarded and should be given great weight.

I hope this ‘history lesson’ helps anyone confronted with ICBC’s LVI Program denying a tort claim because of little vehicle damage.

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for PTSD and Chronic Pain

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, ICBC PTSD Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, awarding a Plaintiff just over $142,000 in total damages as a result of a 2005 BC Car Crash.
In today’s case (Quinlan v. Quaiscer) the Plaintiff suffered various injuries including PTSD and a Chronic Pain Disorder.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $90,000 Mr. Justice Cole summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries and their effect on her life as follows:

[61] There is evidence that the plaintiff has suffered from depression off and on since 1994, including post-partum depression after the births of her children. Additionally, the plaintiff has had a tumultuous relationship with her now ex-husband, which has certainly affected her emotional state. There is evidence, however, that the plaintiff’s prescription for depression medication a few months prior to the Accident was not filled. Dr. Pirolli stated in her report that the plaintiff’s current emotional problems include PTSD and low mood. The PTSD, as I have stated above, is a consequence of the Accident. Regarding the plaintiff’s low mood, Dr. Pirolli stated that it could not “be directly attributed to the accident itself. There is the possibility, however, that any psychological issues present at the time of the accident may have been exacerbated by the accident and its sequelae”. In my view, the plaintiff’s depression prior to the Accident was not significant, and I find that the plaintiff was not suffering from debilitating depression at the time of the Accident.

[62] As mentioned above, the plaintiff’s cuts and bruises resolved within three to six months after the Accident. She is left with a permanent one-inch scar on her elbow, a three and a half inch c-shaped scar on her left knee, and a dark scar on her left shin. Her nose was broken and she had dizziness and headaches. As described in the medical evidence above, the plaintiff’s right wrist pain, right shoulder and right chest area injuries have persisted. Though Dr. Travlos was of the view that the plaintiff would continue to improve over the next 18 months (from his report of April 2007), he stated: “To what extent she recovers is difficult to say at this time and a definitive prognosis cannot be made”. The plaintiff’s problems have not improved to any great extent over the course of the 18 months following that report.

[63] Dr. Travlos was of the view that the plaintiff’s problems of chronic pain syndrome related to the diffused soft-tissue pain that the plaintiff suffered in the right arm and shoulder. In cross-examination he stated that it was unlikely that the plaintiff will fully recover and there is no guarantee that participation in treatment recommendations will result in improvements of those symptoms. The plaintiff’s injuries restrict her ability to participate in physical activities that she formerly enjoyed, such as skiing and baseball. I believe, however, that part of the reason the plaintiff does not participate in these sports is because of a lack of financial resources.

[64] I am satisfied that taking into consideration the plaintiff’s PTSD and her multiple injuries, an appropriate award for non-pecuniary general damages would be $90,000.

More on Costs and "Sufficient Reason" for Suing in Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.

I’ve previously posted on the topic of costs consequences when a Plaintiff succeeds in a BC Supreme Court lawsuit but is awarded damages within the small claims court jurisdiction.
For the Plaintiff to be entitled to costs it must be found that the Plaintiff had “sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court”.  Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with this issue.
In today’s case (Johannson v. National Car Rental) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 BC Car Crash.  The Defendant admitted fault.  At trial Mr. Justice Barrow found that the Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries which he summarized as follows:
I am satisfied that the plaintiff suffered a mild to moderate soft tissue injury to her upper back and neck in the accident. She followed all of the medical advice she was given and was, I am satisfied, motivated to overcome her injuries. Between the date of the accident and the end of the year, she saw her chiropractor approximately 25 times. I am satisfied that the frequency of these visits was due to the pain and discomfort she was experiencing. The injuries caused her considerable discomfort, moreso than similar injuries might cause to other persons because of her pre-existing condition.
Mr. Justice Barrow awarded the Plaintiff just over $15,000 in total damages (well below the Small Claims Court’s current monetary jurisdiction of $25,000).  One of the central issues at trial was weather the Plaintiff suffered a frozen shoulder in the car accident on top of her soft tissue injuries.  Ultimately the Court found that the Plaintiff did suffer from a frozen shoulder but this was not caused by the accident.
The Plaintiff brought a motion to be awarded Supreme Court Costs arguing she had sufficient reason to bring her claim in the Supreme Court.  Specifically it was argued that if the Plaintiff’s expert evidence was accepted with respect to the cause of her frozen shoulder her claim was well within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  The Defence lawyer argued otherwise stating that there was no sufficient reason to sue in the Supreme Court and that “the Plaintiff should have realized at the time she commenced her action that her frozen shoulder was not caused by the motor vehicle accident”.
The Court concluded that there was sufficient reason for this Plaintiff to sue in Supreme Court.  In reaching this conclusion Mr. Justice Barrow summarized and applied some of the principles in these types of cases as follows:
Rule 66(29) is, by its terms, subject to Rule 57(10). Rule 57(10) provides as follows:

A plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act is not entitled to costs, other than disbursements, unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court and so orders.

[4] The onus is on the plaintiff under Rule 57(10) to justify her choice of forum (Bhanji v. Quezada, 2003 BCCA 445). Until the Court of Appeal’s decision in Reimann v. Aziz, 2007 BCCA 448; 286 D.L.R. (4th) 330, there was some uncertainty as to whether the plaintiff’s obligation to justify its choice of forum was a continuing one or rather one to be assessed only at the time the action was commenced. Chaisson J.A. resolved that issue, concluding that a plaintiff must only demonstrate that it had sufficient reason to bring the proceeding in the Supreme Court at the time the action was commenced.

[5] The “sufficient reason” referred to in the rule is often, but not invariably, related to whether the anticipated judgment will exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court. If, at the time the action was commenced, there was sufficient reason to conclude that the judgment would likely exceed the Provincial Court’s monetary jurisdiction, then the decision to proceed in this court will usually be found to be justified. There may be other reasons for proceeding in the Supreme Court. Some of those other reasons were identified in Kuehne v. Probstl, 2004 BCSC 865. Where those other reasons are present then, even if the anticipated monetary award is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, there may still be “sufficient reason” to proceed in this court.

[6] In the case at bar, the only basis advanced for proceeding in the Supreme Court is that the reasonably expected award was likely to exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court…

[12] In effect the plaintiff took the position when she launched this action that her frozen shoulder was the consequence of the defendant’s negligence. I am satisfied that she has always honestly believed that. While that conclusion was not free from doubt when the action was launched, it was not an unreasonable position to take at the time. The fact that her own doctor came to share that view is some indication that the position was not unreasonable, even though there is no evidence that she had the benefit of that opinion at the time the action was started.

[13] In summary, I am satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the plaintiff to bring this proceeding in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to her costs which, given the length of trial and the provisions of Rule 66(29)(b), I set at $6,600 plus disbursements.

In my continued effort to cross reference the current Supreme Court rules with the new Rules of Court that come into force on July 1, 2010 I will note that the Current Rule 57(10) will become Rule 14-1(10) and it reads identical to the current rule so the precedents developed under Rule 57(10) regarding costs should continue to assist litigants under our new rules.

More on Rule 37B – Offers to Multiple Defendants and Reality of Insurance Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with several issues under Rule 37B.
In this case (Towson v. Bergman) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 BC motor vehicle collisions, the first in 2002, the second in 2004.    At trial liability was found as against a Defendant in the first trial.  The second case was dismissed.  Leading up to trial the Plaintiff made a formal offer to all of the Defendants for $500,000.  Following trial over $1.1 million dollars in damages were awarded (click here for my previous posting on the trial judgment).
The court was asked to consider whether the Plaintiff can have double costs when her formal settlement offer under Rule 37B was made to multiple defendants.  The liable defendant argued that “the offer under 37B was invalid…because it was made to multiple defendants…and could only have been accepted by all the defendants, including the defendant’s against whom (the Plaintiff’s) claim was eventually dismissed by the court”.
Madam Justice Gray disagreed with this submission and held that there is no reason why costs consequences can’t follow a formal offer made to multiple defendants under Rule 37B.  Her reasoning was as follows:

[59] Aspen Enterprises Ltd. v. Quiding, 2009 BCSC 50, is the only case I located which considered the effect of a global offer to settle made under Rule 37B.  The plaintiffs inAspen argued that Rule 37B is “intended to be broader in application than the former rules, and therefore should apply to global offers”.  They argued that the fact that a global offer has been made should not preclude a court from considering the factors set out in subrule 37B(6) and exercising its discretion to award double costs.

[60] Fenlon J. appeared to accept this argument, although she found, on consideration of 37B(6)(a), that the offer to settle was not one that ought reasonably to have been accepted by the defendants.  The offer as framed could not have been accepted by Aspen or Kingsway without the consent of the other, and without the further consent of Landmark, which was not even a party at trial.

[61] Rule 37B places no restrictions on the court’s discretion in relation to global settlement offers.  The purpose of the rule is to facilitate and encourage reasonable offers to settle.  It requires a settlement offer to be delivered to all parties of record.  The law developed under Rule 37 regarding global offers is of little assistance.  Pursuant to Rule 37B, the consideration for the court pertaining to global settlement offers is whether the offer was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted.

[62] In considering the effect of an offer to settle on an award for costs under Rule 37B, the court may consider the following factors:

(a)      whether the offer to settle was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, either on the date that the offer to settle was delivered or on any later date;

(b)      the relationship between the terms of settlement offered and the final judgment of the court;

(c)      the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(d)      any other factor the court considers appropriate.

[63] The Offer Under 37B was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted by MPS.  Despite the fact that the Offer Under 37 was addressed to all defendants, it was evident at the time that MPS was the party facing the greatest risk of liability to Ms. Towson.  When the Offer Under 37B was made, it was apparent that the liability, if there were any, of Ms. Chan, Mr. Ko, and Mr. Bergman was likely to be very significantly less than the liability of MPS.

[64] Although MPS could not accept the Offer Under 37B on behalf of Ms. Chan, Mr. Ko, or Mr. Bergman, MPS could have agreed to pay the $500,000 in full settlement of the claim against it.  The eventual judgment was for roughly $1.2 million, being more than double the amount Ms. Towson offered to accept.

[65] In this case, Ms. Towson’s award against the single unsuccessful defendant, MPS, is far greater than the amount she offered to accept. Global offers made in circumstances where there is more than one unsuccessful defendant may give rise to different considerations.

[66] Ms. Towson, at the time of trial, was in difficult financial circumstances.  She was unemployed, living with her parents, and receiving social assistance and disability payments.  MPS is a government ministry.  Ms. Towson’s financial circumstances were significantly worse than those of MPS.

[67] In all these circumstances, Ms. Towson is entitled to double costs, although when the double costs should begin is discussed below.

Madam Justice Gray went on to hold that double costs should begin one week following the delivery of the offer as that was a reasonable period for the Defendants to consider their response.

The other Rule 37B issue that was addressed was whether the existence of insurance should be considered when weighing costs consequences.  Our courts are currently split on this issue.  Madam Justice Gray held that Insurance should not be considered and set out the following reasons:

[113] The British Columbia Supreme Court has divided on the issue of whether insurance should be considered in assessing the relative financial circumstances of the parties.  InBailey, Hinkson J. considered that insurance should not be taken into account:

33.       While I accept that it is likely that most drivers in British Columbia are insured by ICBC, the wording of subrule 37B does not invite consideration of a defendant’s insurance coverage. There may be good policy reasons for this. Insurance coverage limits with ICBC are not universal, and will vary from insured to insured. Certain activities may result in a breach of an individual’s insurance coverage, or the defence of an action under a reservation of rights by ICBC. A plaintiff will not and likely should not be privy to such matters of insurance coverage between a defendant and ICBC.

34.       The contest in this case was between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the insurance benefits available to the defendants do not, in my view, fall within the rubric of their financial circumstances, any more than any collateral benefit entitlement that a plaintiff may have would affect that person’s financial circumstances for the purpose of determining their loss.

[114] Conversely, Madam Justice Boyd in Radke v. Perry, 2008 BCSC 1397, 90 B.C.L.R. (4th) 132, did consider the fact that the defendants were insured by ICBC, stating, at para. 42:

It is also clear that there is a substantial disparity in financial circumstances between the parties. The defendants, represented by ICBC, had substantially greater resources to finance a trial than the individual plaintiff. Had the defendants accepted the plaintiff’s initial reasonable offer, the plaintiff would not have had to incur the significant costs associated with nearly two weeks of trial.

[115] Bailey was released on October 16, 2008, six days before the October 22, 2008 release of Radke.  Radke does not refer to Bailey, and Bailey was likely not brought to the court’s attention.

[116] In my view, the reasoning in Bailey should be preferred, and the court should consider the “relative financial circumstances of the parties” without considering the insurance benefits available to the defendant.  Here, however, there was no evidence concerning the insurance benefits available to Ms. Chan and Mr. Ko.

I will continue to post about Rule 37B cases as they come to my intention despite the fact that the current BC Civil Rules are being repealed on July 1, 2010.  The reason for this is after July 1, 2010 formal settlement offers in the BC Supreme Court will be dealt with under Rule 9-1 which has language that is almost identical to the current Rule 37B making these precedents useful.

The Art of Valuing Pain and Suffering in ICBC Injury Claims

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on The Art of Valuing Pain and Suffering in ICBC Injury Claims

Today reasons for judgment were released by the Vancouver Registry of the BC Supreme Court in 2 separate Injury Claims where Pain and Suffering was valued.  In each case the Plaintiffs suffered different injuries which affected their respective lives to different degrees.  Yet both Plaintiffs were awarded exactly $55,000 for their non-pecuniary damages.  How can this be?  The answer is that valuing claims for pain and suffering is an art, not an exact science.
When asking a personal injury lawyer how much a claim for pain and suffering is worth it is difficult  if not impossible to value a claim at an exact dollar figure.  The only accurate answer is “whatever the judge or jury gives you“.  Instead of attaching an exact dollar figure to any claim personal injury lawyers learn that claims can best be valued within an approximate range of damages.  One judge can award a plaintiff $50,000 for a disc herniation and another can award a plaintiff with the exact same injuries $80,000 and there is nothing wrong in law with this so long as the award falls within the accepted range of damages for similar injuries.
Today’s cases demonstrate this quite well.  In the first case (Morrison v. Gauthier) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 BC Car crash.  Her vehicle was rear-ended in Coquitlam BC.  The Defendant was fully at fault for the crash.
The Plaintiff suffered fairly severe injuries which included an L4-5 disc herniation which from time to time “puts pressure on the L4 nerve root and that the result for the plaintiff is not just pain in the low back – which is always her lot – but intense pain that, amongst other things, travels down the back of her leg“.  In addition to this the Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and a concussion in the collision.
Mr. Justice Stewart found that the effects of the Plaintiff’s back injuries were likely permanent and had a rather profound impact on her.  He stated that “the effect…on the Plaintiff’s life was dramatic…her capacity to (keep her work and home environment in order) has been severely reduced . ”  He went on to find that the Plaintiff was incredibly athletic before the collision and “was a woman who on the basis of the evidence placed before me, I can only describe as a dynamo” and as a result of the car crash “she became…ornery.  She withdrew from her friends.  She became moody and – stunning for her – one who sat idly watching television and gaining unwelcome weight.  To some extent she became – utterly new to her – a chronic complainer.”  Lastly he stated that (the defendant) “managed to reduce a woman operating at an athletic level undreamt of by 99% of the population to a woman who must now, often, be helped out of a chair.  (the Plaintiff’s) compensable loss if overwhelming“.
Mr. Justice Stewart awarded the Plaintiff $55,000 for her non-pecuniary damages.,
In the second case (O’Rourke v. Kenworthy) released today by the BC Supreme Court the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 BC Car Crash.  The Defendant was 100% at fault.  Madam Justice Wedge found that the Plaintiff was injured in the crash.  Specifically the court found that the Plaintiff suffered from neck and back pain which was “severe for several months, which then alleviated considerably over the next year or so.”  The Plaintiff curtailed many of the physical activities which she enjoyed by after about a year she “resumed most of these activities despite continuing ot experience pain“.   By the time of trial she “continued to have pain in her neck and back, but it is not disabling.  She has been able to work, and she is currently able to work.  She participates in numerous sporting activities and continues to hike, which is her first love.  She has continued to travel extensively.   No medical professional offered the opinion that (the Plaintiff’s) pain is chronic in nature, or that it is caused by anything other than soft tissue injuries.  They all agreed that her symptoms are expected to improve and will likely resolve gradually over time…At most (the Plaintiff) is at risk of suffering exacerbation’s of her pain if she engages in certain rigorous activities.”
Scrutinizing the facts of the above two cases the first Plaintiff appears to have suffered more severe injuries which had a more profound effect on her life.  Yet both were awarded the exact same figure for pain and suffering.  This does not necessarily mean that either award was wrong in law, rather the difference can readily be explained by the fact that pain and suffering awards are assessed within rather large ranges of acceptable damages.  A more severe injury valued on the lower end of its respective range of damages can equal a more minor injury valued on the generous end of its range.
In the end, cases like this speak to the art of assessing pain and suffering in BC Injury Claims.  As with any art ‘feel‘ becomes important and this is gained through time and experience.  The more cases you read, the better you will get at the art of valuing non-pecuniary damages and determining the potential value of any given BC Injury Claim.

I Want a Jury Trial, Wait a Minute, No I Don't

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Jury Trials. 50 Comments on I Want a Jury Trial, Wait a Minute, No I Don't

Reasons for judgement were transcribed yesterday and released on the BC Court’s website dealing with an interesting issue, specifically can a party who elected trial by jury change their mind once the trial starts.
In this case (Chapelski v. Bhatt) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 BC Car Crash.  In the course of the lawsuit the defence lawyer filed a Jury Notice and paid the Jury Fees.  On the first day of Trial the Jury was empaneled and the Plaintiff’s lawyer made his opening statement.  The next day the Defence Lawyer advised the Court that he intended to proceed with the trial without the Jury.
Mr. Justice Hinkson ruled that once the Jury was empanelled it was too late for the Defendant to re-elect the mode of trial to that of Judge alone and that the Defendant would have to continue to pay the Jury Fees for the duration of the trial.
Mr. Justice Hinkson’s reasoning was set out in paragraphs 17-20 which I reproduce below:

[17] The reference by Williams J. to Rule 39(26) is significant.  Based upon his reasoning, a party who has served a Notice Requiring Trial by Jury can elect not to proceed with that mode of trial at least until the required jury fees are paid.  But that reasoning does not address a point in time past the point of payment of the required fees.  The reasoning implies that once the point has been passed “the issue of whether a trial is going to be heard by a jury would be conclusively settled”.

[18] I do not take the reference by Williams J., to “late in the day”, to extend past the empanelment of the jury nor the commencement of trial, nor do I accept that it should.  Once empanelled, a civil jury are the triers of fact.

[19] I conclude that absent misconduct of a party, a witness, or a juror once a civil trial has begun without the consent of the opposing party, it is not open to a party who has filed a Notice Requiring Trial by Jury pay the required fees pursuant thereto and participate in the selection of the jury to opt out thereafter for trial by judge alone.

[20] To permit such a re-election smacks a forum shopping and cannot be permitted.  I need not and I do not decide if a jury on a civil trial can be discharged absent misconduct of a party, a witness, or a juror once a civil trial has begun even with the consent of all parties.

$135,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Multiple Crush Syndrome, TOS and TMJ Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Dental Injury Cases, ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Cases, Uncategorized. 110 Comments on $135,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Multiple Crush Syndrome, TOS and TMJ Injury

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry that are worth reviewing for anyone involved in an ICBC Claim for damages for accident related Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.
In today’s case (Sauer v. Scales) liability was denied but Mr. Justice Cohen found the defendant 100% at fault for the collision.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $135,000 Mr. Justice Cohen found as follows with respect to the severity of the accident related injuries:
I find that the plaintiff’s medical experts not only established the plaintiff’s diagnosis that he suffered from thoracic outlet syndrome, but also that of a multiple crush syndrome… he sustained a serious TMJ injury as a result of the accident, and that he should undertake dental reconstruction to treat this disorder…

[256] In the result, I find, on the whole of the evidence, that the plaintiff has proven to the requisite standard that as a result of the accident he sustained moderate to severe injuries to his eyes, teeth, jaw, neck and back.  I accept Dr. Fry’s opinion, confirmed by the other experts for the plaintiff who opined on this issue, that as a result of the accident the plaintiff has significant musculoskeletal and neurological symptoms with respect to his left arm and that the diagnosis is one of multiple crush syndrome, where he has evidence of cervical spine compression, of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome, of cubital tunnel syndrome and of carpal tunnel syndrome.

[257] I also find that the injuries he sustained in the accident and the requirement to take therapy and medication on a continuing basis since the accident to treat those injuries has had a significant impact on the quality of the plaintiff’s life, including sleeping, eating and physical fitness, as well as upon his social and personal relationships.

[258] I am mindful of the evidence that since the accident the plaintiff has experienced varying degrees of improvement in his overall symptoms; that to some limited extent he has been able to return to physical pursuits such as tennis, jogging and skiing; that he has been able to travel on family vacations; and, that during the time he was involved with the affairs of Global Synfrac he frequently commuted to Calgary to attend Board meetings.  I am also mindful of the evidence that his prognosis remains poor with regard to his TMJ disorder and thoracic outlet syndrome, and there remains the possibility of him having to undergo further surgical procedures to address these conditions.  Moreover, he will have to continue taking therapy and medications to treat his ongoing symptoms.

[259] Taking all of the above factors into account, I find that $135,000 is a fair and reasonable sum to award the plaintiff for general damages.

Paragraphs 233-236 of this case will be of particular interest to anyone who has undergone an ‘independent medical exam‘ with Dr. A.I Munro.   Dr. Munro has conducted many of these exams on behalf of ICBC and often disagrees with the diagnosis of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.  Mr. Justice Cohen held that “no weight should be given to the opinions of Dr. Munro on this issue (the Plaintiff’s Thoracic Outlet Syndrome)”.  In reaching this conclusion extensive portions of Dr. Munro’s cross examination were reproduced which I set out below:

[234] In the report of Dr. A.I. Munro, a specialist in thoracic and cardiac surgery, dated March 9, 2006, he concluded that as a result of the accident the plaintiff sustained a mild soft tissue injury of the neck and that he did not have thoracic outlet syndrome.  He also concluded that the plaintiff had a left ulnar entrapment syndrome which was causing his disability, and that the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome had recovered, stating that, “only one hand was on the steering wheel so it cannot be due to the MVA.”  He also said that the plaintiff’s disability is associated with numbness and weakness caused by a left ulnar entrapment syndrome plus cervical nerve root pains.  However, despite his experience as a thoracic surgeon, Dr. Munro testified that he may have done one thoracic outlet syndrome surgery between the years 1994 to 2001.  He said that he may have done one at St. Paul’s Hospital, but he was not sure, and otherwise a previous one would have been done at UBC Hospital.  He also testified:

Q         — at VGH?  Mm-hm.  And what type of surgeries were you performing over that period from ’68 to 1990, if I have the years roughly correct.

A          General thoracic surgery and cardiac surgery, both closed and open heart surgery.

Q         Okay.  And of the — I take it there were other surgeons who performed a similar practice to yours?

A          I suppose all the surgeons had slight variations in their practices.

Q         Mm-hm.  Were any of these surgeons –

A          Some of them were purely thoracic, some of them were purely cardiac, and some were mixed.

Q         Okay.  Were any of the ones that were purely thoracic involved with thoracic outlet syndrome and surgeries on that condition?

A          Early on, no.  Probably I saw most of them until probably Dr. Fry, Dr. Nelems came on staff, and they saw most of the thoracic outlet surgery after that.

Q         And when would that be?

A          I’m not sure of the actual dates.

Q         Was it shortly after –

A          Probably in the — my guess would be the early ’80s, —

…

Q         And prior to 2001 when you were at VGH after Dr. Fry and the other physician you mentioned began to specialize, those cases would be — TOS cases would be sent to them for –

A          Yes.

Q         — assessment at surgery; correct?

A          Yes.

…

Q         Yeah.

A          The second aspect is looking at a specific five-year period and analyzing what cases I had seen during that five-year period.

Q         And what five-year period is this?

A          That was 2002, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Q         Mm-hm.  Mm-hm.  And — and that — that is where you were giving me these approximate numbers?

A          Correct.

Q         Okay.  So during that period, there were somewhere between 25 to 30 per cent that were involving non-severe neck injuries that — where — that could have been, in your opinion, thoracic outlet syndrome issues?

A          No.  There was a fair percentage of people who had such bizarre symptoms and signs that you couldn’t fit them into any logical medical diagnosis, —

Q         Mm-hm.

A          — often associated with psychiatric disease.

Q         Mm-hm.  But other specialists had assessed them as thoracic outlet syndromes?

A          Yes.

Q         Mm-hm.

A          These were all people who had been sent to me to consider this diagnosis.

Q         Mm-hm.  Now, going back to my question in terms of your — oh, maybe I’ll finish.  In that five-year period, I take it, Doctor, there were people who you did concur with the other physician that the diagnosis was thoracic –

A          In that particular –

Q         — outlet syndrome?

A          — five-year period, no.  In the previous five years, yes.

Q         Okay.  And how many occasions was that, do you recall?

A          In the previous five years, —

Q         Mm-hm.

A          — I think it was two, but I cannot tell you for sure.

Q         Two of approximately 30 per year?  Thirty reports a year?

A          Probably at that time I was seeing less than 30 per year.

Q         Mm-hm.

A          I do not have the exact figures –

Q         Sure.

A          — for that previous –

Q         Okay.

A          — five-year period.

Q         So — but in the last 10 years it would be reports in the order of several hundred reports, and of those several hundred reports you concurred with the other specialists on two occasions that you can recall?

A          Yes.

$50,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for "Mechanical Spine Pain"

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, awarding total damages of just over $95,000 as a result of a 2005 BC Car Crash.
In today’s case (Mar v. Young) the Plaintiff was rear-ended while in a vehicle on the Island Highway near Nanoose, BC.   Fault was not formally admitted.  Mr. Justice Bracken found the rear vehicle 100% liable for the collision.
A physiatrist who gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff explained that he suffered from mechanical spine pain as a result of the collision and this was different from a soft tissue injury because “mechanical spine pain originates in the tissues that are part of the spine itself and not the muscle or soft tissue that surround the spine.  These tissues lay quite deep under the skin and provide support for the spine itself.”
In assessing the non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $50,000 Mr. Justice Bracken summarized the accident related injuries and their effect on the Plaintiff’s life as follows:

[37] On all of the evidence I conclude that the plaintiff suffered injuries to his thoracic and lumbar spine and that while his condition has improved he has not yet fully recovered.  The physical examinations conducted by Dr. Wahl and Dr. McKean indicate that the plaintiff has good range of motion of his neck and hips, but that he still has pain in his mid and lower back.  Both doctors testified that the plaintiff says that his pain and discomfort prevents him from carrying out his normal day-to-day activities of work and recreation, but the doctors disagree on his prognosis.  Dr. McKean considers it quite possible that the plaintiff will continue to experience some pain that will affect him for the foreseeable future.  Dr. Wahl is more optimistic and believes that there will at least be significant improvement and possibly full recovery.

[38] I find that the plaintiff still experiences pain 4 years post accident and it is likely that he will do so for some time to come.  It is clear from the evidence that he can carry out many of his normal activities, but not without some pain.  He has limited many of his activities somewhat and says that he is still prevented from participating in others.  There is no supportive objective medical evidence other than the disc bulge and early degeneration in the lumbar spine that Dr. Wahl considered to be within the normal range for the plaintiff’s age.  The plaintiff has been able to continue working, at times for long periods at a time, but he has experienced pain and discomfort and says that he must get up and move around and stretch at frequent intervals to ease his discomfort.  Former co-workers corroborate his evidence on his work related limits.  He purchased an expensive chair for use when he is working at his computer, but while it helps him, it does not completely eliminate pain and discomfort.

[39] The defendant noted that the plaintiff seemed to move easily and without obvious pain while he was in the courtroom.  I agree that the plaintiff seemed to have a reasonable range of flexibility when rotating from his hips and he could move his arms easily.  That does not seem inconsistent with the observations of both Dr. McKean and Dr. Wahl, but both note that the plaintiff continues to complain of pain in the mid to lower back.  The plaintiff testified that he still experiences some pain in that part of his back and his wife and friends corroborate his evidence.  There is no evidence before me to contradict that evidence.  No doubt the injuries have taken some time to resolve, but I accept that the plaintiff still has some pain and discomfort from the injuries caused by the accident.

[40] While each of the cases referred to above were cited as cases that had similar fact patterns, as it was stated in Tong v. Sidhu, above, no two cases are exactly alike and in the final result each case stands on its own facts.  In this case I find that the plaintiff’s injuries are more serious than the range suggested by the defendant.  The injuries have lasted with diminishing disability for 4 years and will likely continue to affect the plaintiff for a considerable period of time to at least some degree.

[41] The plaintiff has a sedentary job and to some extent that is an advantage as he is not likely to be exposed to the need for any hard physical labour in the course of his work.  However, he will likely spend the majority of his working life sitting at a desk working on a computer.  The impact of even mild pain or discomfort in his back will be a problem that will affect his concentration and ability to focus on his work.  He will have to take frequent short breaks from his work to compensate.  He will be at least somewhat limited in his recreational and home maintenance activities, although I accept Dr. Wahl’s view that the impact of his injuries will likely diminish over time as his condition improves and his disability lessens.

[42] On all of the evidence, it is my view that an award of $50,000 is appropriate for non-pecuniary damages.

Defamation Law – Hyperlinks and Publication

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 58 Comments on Defamation Law – Hyperlinks and Publication

An important case was released today by the BC Court of Appeal (Crookes v. Newton) dealing with defamation law.  When a Defendant is sued for defamation it must be proven that defamatory material was “published”.  Today’s case was the first from a Canadian Appellate Court which dealt with the issue of whether an author of an article who provides a hyperlink to another article which contains defamatory material constitutes ‘publication’.
The BC Court of Appeal held that “there is no basis for finding a presumption of publication of the hyperlinked articles and that the mere fact (the Defendant) hyperlinked the impugned sites does not make him a publisher of the material found at the hyperlinked sites”.  The key discussion is set out at paragraphs80-93 which I set out below:

[80] There are two aspects to the publication element of the tort of defamation. The first, relating to the defendant as publisher, concerns the act of promulgating the impugned item. The second, relating to the third party receiver of the impugned item, concerns the receipt of that item by a person within the court’s jurisdiction. (I refer to the issue of jurisdiction because publication, to be actionable, must be within this jurisdiction, and publication of internet material occurs where the words are read:  King v. Lewis, [2005] E.M.L.R. 45, C.A.;Gutnick v. Dow Jones, [2002] H.C.A. 56.) In my respectful view, the reasons for judgment of my learned colleague mix these issues as one.

[81] The first of these two aspects is whether, by creating the hyperlinks in question, Mr. Newton can be seen to have promulgated a writing or message that is defamatory of the appellant. A near case was considered by this Court in Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, 42 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1. The issue in Carter was whether the defendant, in publishing a web address at which the allegedly defamatory material was contained, had re-published that material. Mr. Justice Hall, for this Court, in holding it did not, said:

[12]      In my opinion, the factual situation here is closer to the situation found to exist in the New York cases of MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S. (2d) 520 (Sup. Ct. 1952) andKlein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (Ct. App. 1946), referred to by the trial judge, where the courts held reference to an article containing defamatory comment without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory comment.

[82] While the circumstances of Carter differ from those before us, there is, in my view, no substantial difference between providing a web address and a mere hyperlink. Whether the hyperlink is a web address, as is often the case, or a more specific reference, both require a decision on the part of the reader to access another website, and both require the reader to take a distinct action, in the one case typing in a web address and in the other case clicking on the hyperlink. In other words, there is a barrier between the accessed article and the hyperlinked site that must be bridged, not by the publisher, but by the reader. The essence of following a hyperlink is to leave the website one was at to enter a different and independent website.

[83] Nor am I persuaded that in this era of rapidly changing technology we should assume access from a mere web address mentioned in an article will require any more effort than from a hyperlink. It is easy to contemplate a program whereby a click of a computer mouse engages a program on the reader’s computer that effects the same result as a hyperlink. In other words, I agree with my colleague’s conclusion at para. 58:

I agree with the trial judge that the reasoning of this Court in Carter supports Mr. Newton’s position that the mere fact he hyperlinked the impugned sites does not make him a publisher of the material found at the hyperlinked sites.

[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.

[85] In the case before us, the judge held concerning the context of the hyperlinks:

[32]      In the present case, although hyperlinks referred the reader to articles now claimed by the plaintiffs to be defamatory, the plaintiffs agree that the defendant did not publish any defamatory content on the p2pnet website itself.  The defendant did not reproduce any of the disputed content from the linked articles on p2pnet and did not make any comment on the nature of the linked articles.  In these circumstances, a reader of the p2pnet website who did not click on the hyperlinks provided would not have any knowledge of the allegedly defamatory content.

[33]      As the Court of Appeal observed in Carter, citing the proposition of the New York cases MacFadden v. Anthony and Kline v. Biben, “reference to an article containing defamatory content without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory content”.

[86] In these observations, in my view, the judge was entirely correct.

[87] My colleage considers that the judge did not fully explore the context of the hyperlinks in determining Mr. Newton had not participated in publishing the impugned articles. In her view the fact Mr. Newton’s article containing the hyperlinks deals with free speech and defamation, and the fact it refers to lawsuits involving Mr. Crookes, serve “as words of encouragement, or an invitation”, to look further.

[88] For clarity, the article on Mr. Newton’s website under the headline “Free Speech in Canada” said:

Under new developments, thanks to the lawsuit, I’ve just met Michael Pilling, who runs OpenPolitics.ca. Based in Toronto, he, too, is being sued for defamation. This time by politician Wayne Crookes.

[89] With respect, I see no encouragement or invitation from the fact the discussion concerns free speech and defamation. Nor, in my view, can reference to Mr. Crookes’ litigation reasonably have that effect. Those factors, at a minimum, alert the reader to the potential for untrue content or disputed commentary. They fall far short of a statement of approbation, or adoption, and appear to me to be most comparable to a footnote for a reader, or a card index in a library. It is not, as was suggested is sometimes the way in the recent caseMetropolitan Schools v. Google Inc., [2009] E.W.H.C. 1765 (Q.B.), a snippet from the article or a snippet produced by a search engine.

[90] On these considerations I conclude Mr. Newton was not a publisher because of his hyperlinks to the offensive article.

[91] The second aspect of publication is whether it can be inferred a person accessed the impugned articles by way of the hyperlinks. My colleague would conclude, from the fact of 1,788 “hits” of Mr. Newton’s article that at least one person within this jurisdiction, did so.

[92] In my view, the approach taken by my colleague to the effect that from the number of persons accessing Mr. Newton’s website it may be inferred that a person in this jurisdiction accessed the impugned articles by clicking on them, does not sustain scrutiny. In the context of internet life, we have no way to assess the volume of “hits” here compared to the norm, the usual behaviour of internet readers or “surfers”, or the jurisdiction in which they reside. The conclusion drawn by my colleague is, with respect, tantamount to a presumption that in the case of a website accessed to any significant extent, there has been communication of the offensive material. This is contrary to her conclusion on the issue of presumption, and one with which I do not agree. The conclusion effectively reduces the element of publication to the role of the publisher without consideration of the receipt of the impugned material. There may be cases in which more is known supporting such an inference, but such is not the case here where all that is before us is the bald number of hits. In my view there is an insufficient basis upon which to make such an inference, and the inference drawn cannot co-exist with the reasons for judgment on the matter of a presumption.

[93] Last, the appellant complains that Mr. Newton did not remove the hyperlinks when asked to do so. This is not a question considered by the judge, and findings of fact are not contained in the reasons for judgment to support a discussion of that interesting issue. But for my conclusion on the question of drawing an inference that a person clicked on the hyperlink, I would allow the appeal and remit this question to the trial court for determination. However, in view of my conclusion on the question of inference, I would dismiss the appeal.