Skip to main content

Plaintiff's "Disadvantaged" Financial Circumstances Disentitle ICBC to Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Uncategorized. 40 Comments on Plaintiff's "Disadvantaged" Financial Circumstances Disentitle ICBC to Costs


There have been many cases dealing with “the relative financial circumstances of the parties” focussing on whether a Defendant is insured in deciding the costs consequences after trials with formal settlement offers. (The BC Court of Appeal weighed in on this issue earlier this year deciding insurance can in fact be considered).  There have not, however, been many cases dealing with the Plaintiff’s finances (or lack thereof) as a compelling circumstance.  This overdue issue was addressed earlier this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry.
In today’s case (Dickson v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in a bicycle accident involving an unknown motorist.  He sued ICBC under s. 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.  ICBC denied fault on behalf of the unknown driver.  Prior to trial ICBC offered to settle the issue of fault on a 50/50 basis.  The plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial where Madam Justice Russell found both parties equally at fault.
Typically, when ICBC matches or beats their formal offer at trial, ICBC becomes entitled to post offer costs.  Madam Justice Russell refused to follow this usual course, however, noting that the Plaintiff’s financial circumstances put the plaintiff at a ‘serious disadvantage‘.  In awarding the Plaintiff costs to the time of the offer and depriving both parties of post offer costs Madam Justice Russell held as follows:

[13]    It is my view that the plaintiff’s position is one of serious disadvantage as a result of the accident.  I recall that he was unable to work for a long period of time as a result of his injury and was still unable to return to work by the time of the hearing.

[14]    The plaintiff is the sole support of his family and either had run out of disability benefits or was close to the end of those benefits by the time of the summary trial…

[17]    I view the financial circumstances of the plaintiff as compelling on the issue of whether double costs should be awarded.

[18]    In Osooli-Talesh v. Emami, 2008 BCSC 1749, the offer to settle matched the judgment achieved and Sigurdson, J. concluded that the court may award payment of double costs where an offer to settle matches the results at trial.  However, he went on to consider all the factors listed in Rule 37B.  He determined that the parties had divided success and should therefore bear their own costs.

[19]    I am guided by that decision and consider it apposite to the circumstances of this case.

[20]    I award costs of this case to the plaintiff to the date of the receipt of the defendants’ offer to settle and order both parties to bear their own costs thereafter.

More Than Lawyer's Say Needed For MRI's to be Recoverable Disbursements

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


Further to my previous post on this topic, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing when an MRI is a reasonable disbursement in a personal injury lawsuit.
In today’s case (Farrokhmanesh v. Sahib) the Plaintiff was injured in two BC collisions.  He sued for damages and settled his claims prior to trial.  However, the parties could not agree on whether some of the Plaintiff’s disbursements were reasonable.  The parties applied to the Court to resolve the issue and Registrar Sainty held that the Plaintiff’s privately retained MRI was not a recoverable disbursement.  The Plaintiff appealed this ruling.  Mr. Justice Ehrcke dismissed the appeal and in doing so made the following comments about MRI’s in personal injury lawsuits:

[33]         The applicant submits that the Registrar erred in principle by saying that there must be a medical reason for ordering the MRI. In my view, the applicant’s submission seeks to parse the Registrar’s decision too finely. In reviewing the Decision of the Registrar with the appropriate level of deference, it would be wrong to focus on a single word or a phrase taken out of the context in which it occurs.

[34]         When read in context, the Registrar’s reason for disallowing the cost of the MRI is that she found it was not necessarily or properly incurred. In coming to that conclusion, she took into account that no medical professional had advised counsel of the probable utility of an MRI in the particular circumstances of this case. Mr. Fahey had deposed in para. 11 of his affidavit that he was unaware of the plaintiff exhibiting any objective signs of injury when he ordered the MRI scans.

[35]         I am unable to find that the Registrar acted on a wrong principle in disallowing the cost of the MRIs in this case, and I would not interfere with her Decision.

To be on the safe side it is a good idea to have a treating medical practitioner requesting an MRI or other diagnostic test to maximize the chance that these expenses will be recoverable disbursements.

Over 36,000 Reasons for Learning Motorists to Drive With A Qualified Accompanying Passenger

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating some of the real world consequences drivers with a learner’s licence could face if they are found to be in breach of their policy of insurance.
In today’s case (King v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 BC motor vehicle collision.  4 vehicles were involved in the crash.  The Plaintiff was insured with ICBC and they paid out over $36,000 with respect to the claims made from the crash.  At the time of the collision the Plaintiff had a Class 5L learners licence and was operating his vehicle “without a qualified accompanying passenger“.   As a result he was found in breach of his insurance.   He was found to be the at fault motorist and ICBC asked that he pay them back the over $36,000.
The Plaintiff sued ICBC arguing that he was not at fault and that he was not in breach of his insurance.  ICBC counterclaimed for $36,613.33.  Prior to trial ICBC made an offer to settle their claim against the Plaintiff for $33,000.  The Plaintiff declined this offer and proceeded to trial.  Ultimately Mr. Justice Pearlman found the plaintiff was the at fault motorist and that he was in breach of his policy of insurance.  He ordered that he pay back ICBC the funds they paid out with respect to the collision claims.
The Court went further and ordered that the Plaintiff pay ICBC double costs for failing to accept their pre trial offer.  In reaching this judgement Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following reasons:

[30]         The plaintiff’s claim failed as a result of the court finding that neither his testimony, nor that of his witness, Ms. Gromova, was credible.  The court found that the plaintiff had wilfully made a false statement respecting Ms. Gromova’s presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

[31]          The over-riding principle is whether, if the Offer to Settle had been accepted, there would have been significant, or any savings in litigation costs to the parties or to the court: LeFler v. Anderson, 2008 BCSC 1563, at para. 18. Here, acceptance of the offer would have spared both parties the significant costs of a four day trial where the amount in dispute was, exclusive of court order interest, less than forty thousand dollars.

[32]         Taking all these factors into consideration, I conclude that an award of double costs should be made in this case, and is consistent with the objective of deterring unreasonable conduct in litigation.  I find that the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable time to consider the defendant’s Offer to Settle, following its delivery on September 24, 2010.  Taking into account the disclosure of the will say statements of the defendant’s witnesses on September 29, and allowing Mr. King a reasonable time to consider his position, and the defendant’s Offer following the delivery of the will say statements, I find that the defendant is entitled to an award of double costs  commencing October 7, 2010.

RESULT

[33]         The defendant will recover its costs and disbursements of this action from its commencement until October 7, 2010.  Those costs will be at Scale B.

[34]         The defendant is entitled double costs commencing October 7, 2010 and to disbursements incurred after October 7, 2010.  Disbursements will be allowed in the amount incurred, rather than at a double rate.

Lump Sum Costs and the New BC Supreme Court Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 14.


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, finding that the new Civil Rules give the BC Supreme Court the power to award lump sum costs without the need for taxation.  Madam Justice Adair held that this power was not available under the former rules absent party consent.
In today’s case (Madock v. Grauer) the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for damages.  At trial one of the Defendant’s was ordered to pay $5,000 in damages.  The parties could not agree on the cost consequences that followed and applied to the trial judge to address this issue.   Madam Justice Adair ultimately held that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs and fixed these at $11,000.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons about the ability of trial judges to award lump sum costs:

[47]         Under Rule 14-1(15), “The court may award costs (a) of a proceeding . . . and in awarding those costs the court may fix the amount of costs, including the amount of disbursements.”  This Rule is to be contrasted with its counterpart in the old Rules, Rule 57(13), which provided, and I am going to emphasize the first few words:

With the consent of the parties, the court may fix a lump sum as the costs of the whole proceeding, either inclusive or exclusive of disbursements and expenses.

A key change in the new Rule is that consent of the parties is no longer necessary, before the court can fix lump sum costs.

The Court went on to use the new concept of ‘proportionality‘ and found that this was an appropriate case to order lump sum costs.  Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

[49]         I have concluded that these siblings and Mr. Grauer would not be well-served by having a forum – namely, taxation of costs – in which they can continue to litigate over the late Mr. McKenzie’s estate.  Moreover, prolonging litigation among these parties is, in my opinion, out of all proportion to the amount involved, the importance of the issues in dispute and the complexity of the proceeding.  Rather, it is now time for finality.  The costs consequent on my judgment following the trial must also be in some rational proportion to the amount ultimately recovered, which was $5,000.  The costs – indeed the double costs – that the plaintiffs suggest in their submissions they should be awarded are out of all proportion to what would be reasonable.

[50]         I have therefore concluded that, in this case, orders should be made for lump sum costs under Rule 14-1(15)

The Price of Passing the Buck: Dismissed Third Party Claims and Costs Consequences

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Uncategorized. 46 Comments on The Price of Passing the Buck: Dismissed Third Party Claims and Costs Consequences


As previously discussed, when Plaintiffs lose a lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court the Defendants are typically each entitled to recover their ‘costs‘.   For this reason Plaintiffs need to take care in selecting the Defendants to their lawsuit.  The same principle holds true for Defendants who don’t accept blame for their actions and unsuccessfully try to pass the buck by dragging a ‘Third Party’ into a lawsuit.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, demonstrating this general principle.
In this week’s case (Vedan v. Stevens) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for personal injuries.  The Defendant denied fault and blamed the Plaintiff.  The Defendant also filed a “Third Party” claim against two individuals arguing they may be at fault and brought them into the lawsuit.  Ultimately Madam Justice Beames found that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were at fault for the Plaintiff’s injuries but that the Third Parties were faultless.
The Third Party brought a motion seeking an order requiring the Defendants to pay their costs.  The Defendant argued that these should be the Plaintiff’s responsibility.  Madam Justice Beames disagreed and ordered that the Defendant pay the Third Party’s costs.  In reaching this typical result the Court provided the following reasons:

[7]             With respect to who ought to pay the third parties’ costs, the general rule is that a defendant who has unsuccessfully brought third party proceedings should be responsible for the third parties’ costs: Wilson v. INA Insurance Co. of Canada, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2174 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 37; Milina v. Bartsch, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2789 (S.C.) at para. 4.

[8]             As McLachlin J. (as she then was) said in Milina:

[5]        There may be situations where, on the peculiar facts of the case, fairness requires that an unsuccessful plaintiff bear a successful third party’s costs. Courts have held that such an order may be appropriate where one or more of the following situations was present:

1.         Where the main issue litigated was between the plaintiff and the third party…

2.         Where the third party was brought or kept in the matter by reason of the act or neglect of the plaintiff…

3.         Where the case involves a string of contracts in substantially the same terms for the sale of goods…

4.         Where the third party proceedings follow naturally and inevitably upon the institution of plaintiff’s action, in the sense that the defendant had no real alternative but to join the third party…

[9]             The defendant argues that this situation is very similar to that of Norman (Guardian ad litem of) v. McMillan, 2004 BCSC 384 in which the court found that the defendant fell within the exceptions in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Milina. In my view, the decision in Norman is distinguishable. There, the defendant was found completely blameless for the accident, which had initially been commenced when the plaintiff’s mother was his guardian ad litem. It had been her decision to commence the unsuccessful action against the defendant in the first instance. Certain steps that were taken in the action led the trial judge to conclude that defence counsel had a proper basis for alleging negligence on the part of the third party and the trial judge accepted that the third party, or her counsel, had employed tactics amounting to an attempt to make an end run around the defendant.

[10]         I am not satisfied that there is anything in this case which takes it out of the general rule. Consequently, the defendant will bear the third parties’ costs as assessed.

More on the New Rules, Formal Settlement Offers and Timelines for Acceptance

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized. 68 Comments on More on the New Rules, Formal Settlement Offers and Timelines for Acceptance


As I’ve previously written, the new formal settlement offer rule (Rule 9) reads almost identically to the former Rule 37B.   Under the former rules BC Courts were reluctant to have formal settlement offers trigger costs consequences following trial where the offer was open for acceptance for a short period of time.  Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, reaching a similar result under Rule 9.
In today’s case (Hunter v. Anderson) the Plaintiff sued for injuries as a result of a slip and fall incident.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant made a formal settlement offer for $25,000.  This offer was made one week before trial and was left open for acceptance for only 3 days.  The Plaintiff declined the offer and proceeded to trial.  After trial the Defendant was found 25% at fault for the fall and the Plaintiff was awarded just over $9,000 in damages.
The Defendant asked to be awarded their costs from the time of the offer onward.  Mr. Justice Cullen refused to do so finding that the offer was not alive for a reasonable period of time and split the costs the parties were entitled to.   In reaching this verdict the Court provided the following reasons:
[14] In dealing with the first issue under Rule 9-1(6), whether the offer was one that might reasonably have been accepted “the analysis is not one of hindsight, once the final result is known”.  See A.E. v. D.W.J. 2009 BCSC 505; Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372.  In the present case, the operative offer of the defendant was made relatively late in the day and was essentially premised on the defendant having no potential liability, but simply to offset the costs of a potential trial…

[15]         In my view, on balance, in the circumstances, despite the ultimate result, given the short duration of the offer, the fact that it was not based on an assessment of the liability of the defendant, it could not be characterized as one which ought reasonably to have been accepted.  I note that on March 9, 2010, when the offer was made, the defendant had not yet provided her fourth and final list of documents which was provided on March 10th.  As well, there was ongoing disclosure of the plaintiff’s documents.

[16]         In addition I note that in Bailey v. Jang, supra, Hinkson J. (as he then was) considered a seven day period “a reasonable time after which the plaintiff could consider (the defendant’s) offer” for purposes of awarding double costs under the old Rule 37B(6) after the expiry of that period…

Although the defendant tendered her offer on March 9th, six days before trial, it was in the context of ongoing disclosure and was left open, effectively, for only three days.  The plaintiff did not have the benefit of a great deal of time to assess the defendant’s offer.  In the context of Bailey v. Jang, Hinkson J. considered a seven day period “a reasonable period of time after which the plaintiff could consider their offer”.  I conclude a similar period is appropriate to impute in the circumstances of this case where the plaintiff was deprived of the ability to accept the defendant’s offer after only three days effectively commencing March 10th.  In light of that factor and the others I have set forth, I award the plaintiff, as indicated, the costs and disbursements up to and including the first two days of trial, and the defendants their costs and disbursements for the six days comprising the balance of the trial.

New Rules Caselaw Update: Costs and "Substantial Success" in the BC Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on New Rules Caselaw Update: Costs and "Substantial Success" in the BC Supreme Court


The New BC Supreme Court Rule 14-1(9) states that a successful party in a proceeding “must be awarded” costs unless the court otherwise orders.  The former Rule 57(9) dealt with this issue although it had slightly different wording.
Today reasons for judgement were released, for what I believe is the first time, dealing with and interpreting the new rule.
In today’s case (Aschenbrenner v. Yahemich) the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for trespass, nuisance, defamation and other matters.  Ultimately they succeeded in some of their claims and were awarded just over $5,500 in total damages.  The Plaintiffs applied for an order of costs.  The Defendant opposed arguing that the costs award would be worth more than the awarded damages.
Ultimately Mr. Justice Metzger sided with the Plaintiffs and awarded them most of their costs.  In doing so the Court adopted authorities developed under the former rules.  Mr. Justice Metzger provided the following reasons discussing when a party is entitled to costs under Rule 14-1(9):

[12] Rule 14-1(9) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states that:

(9)        Subject to subrule (12), costs of a proceeding must be awarded to the successful party unless the court otherwise orders.

[13] While the Rule itself does not include the term “substantial success” under the former Rule 57(9), it was held to be a necessary and sufficient condition for an award of costs under Rule 57(9) that success in the outcome of the trial be “substantial”: see Gold v. Gold, 82 B.C.L.R. (2d) 180, 32 B.C.A.C. 287.

[14] In Fotheringham v. Fotheringham, 2001 BCSC 1321 at para. 18, 108 A.C.W.S. (3d) 786, appeal to C.A. refused, 2002 BCCA 454, 172 B.C.A.C. 179, Bouck J. stated that a trial judge has absolute and unfettered discretion with respect to costs, but it ought not to be exercised against a successful party except for some good reason in connection with the case.

[15] Mr. Justice Bouck canvassed the factors to be considered with respect to Rule 57(9), and at para. 45 stated:

[45] Gold now seems to say that substantial success in an action should be decided by the trial judge looking at the various matters in dispute and weighing their relative importance. The words “substantial success” are not defined. For want of a better measure, since success, a passing grade, is around 50% or better, substantial success is about 75% or better. That does not mean a court must descend into a meticulous mathematical examination of the matters in dispute and assign a percentage to each matter. Rather, it is meant to serve as a rough and ready guide when looked at all the disputed matters globally.

[16] Mr. Justice Bouck then sets out a four step inquiry to determine whether or not to award costs after a trial at para. 46:

1.         First, by focusing on the “matters in dispute” at the trial. These may or may not include “issues” explicitly mentioned in the pleadings.

2.         Second, by assessing the weight or importance of those “matters” to the parties.

3.         Third, by doing a global determination with respect to all the matters in dispute and determining which party “substantially succeeded,” overall and therefore won the event.

4.         Fourth, where one party “substantially succeeded,” a consideration of whether there are reasons to “otherwise order” that the winning party be deprived of his or her costs and each side then bear their own costs.

(See also: Citta Construction v. Elizabeth Lane Holdings Ltd., 2004 BCSC 280, 129 A.C.W.S. (3d) 46 at para. 7.)

[17] Substantial success is not determined by counting up the number of issues and allocating success on each, or by comparing the dollar amounts, but by assessing success in the major issues of substance (Cohen v. Cohen, 1995 Carswell 608, 15 R.F.L. (4th) 84 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 4; Reilly v. Reilly, [1996] B.C.J. No. 1244 (S.C.); Rattenbury v. Rattenbury, 2001 BCSC 593, [2001] B.C.J. No. 889 at paras. 22-24, 33). Substantial success means success on 75% of the matters globally taking into account the weight of the issues and their importance to the parties. A court should compare the pleadings and the submissions with the actual results obtained by the parties (Rattenbury at para. 24.).

[18] In cases where one party achieves substantial success, the courts may award a portion of the substantially successful party’s costs. For example, in Newstone v. Newstone, [1994] B.C.J. No. 139, 2 R.F.L. (4th) 129 (C.A.), an award of one-half costs to a party was upheld where “[s]uccess, if it could be called that, lay more with the wife than with the husband …” One-half costs were also upheld in Rolls v. Rolls, [1996] B.C.J. No. 292, 20 R.F.L. (4th) 232 (C.A.), on the ground that such an award would not create an imbalanced judgment as much as would a full award. InCohen v. Cohen, a spouse was awarded 75% of her costs after success on her reapportionment claim, which was the largest and most time-consuming issue.

[19] The four step test identified by Bouck J. applies not only to matrimonial cases, but also to all types of cases where Rule 14-1(10) has application (Chaster (Guardian ad litem of) v. LeBlanc, 2008 BCSC 47, 164 A.C.W.S. (3d) 43 at para. 34).

[20] Where success is divided such that there is no substantially successful party, the parties may have to bear their own costs (Mari v. Mari, 2001 BCSC 1848, [2001] B.C.J. No. 2979).

[21] On a global view of the outcome of this litigation I find that the plaintiffs were substantially successful.

Defendant Punished With Costs Award for Relying on "Advocate" Expert Witness

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized.


Dr. Hymie Davis is a psychiatrist who has been frequently retained by ICBC to provide expert opinions as to the extent of Plaintiff’s accident related injuries.  (You can click here to access my previous posts setting out the billings of Dr. Davis and other experts often retained by ICBC).  In a judgement released last week, the BC Supreme Court harshly criticized Dr. Davis and took the unusual step of punishing the Defendant, (who was insured with ICBC), for relying on him at trial.
In last week’s case (Jayetileke v. Blake) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.  She sued for damages.  Prior to trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer of $122,500.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  She was ultimately awarded about $9,000 less than the settlement offer by the trial judge.
Normally, in these circumstances, ICBC would be entitled to their costs and possibly double costs from the time of their offer onward.  Mr. Justice Dley, however, refused to follow this usual course finding that not only should the Defendant not be awarded costs, but they should pay the Plaintiff costs.  The reason for this departure was a finding that Dr. Davis was “nothing more than an advocate thinly disguised in the cloak of an expert” and he should not have been relied on by the defence at trial.
Mr. Justice Dley provided the following damaging criticism of Dr. Davis as an expert witness and warning to lawyers who  intend to rely on experts who have a history of crossing the line into advocacy:

[35] Dr. Davis had a history before the courts where his evidence was rejected and his objectivity called into question: Grewal v. Brar et al, 2004 BCSC 1157, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1819; Gosal v. Singh, 2009 BCSC 1471, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2131; Kelly v. Sanmugathas, 2009 BCSC 958, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1413; and Smusz v. Wolfe Chevrolet, 2010 BCSC 82, [2010] B.C.J. No. 114.

[36] A witness may have a poor day in court – that does not mean the witness was dishonest or forever unreliable. However, Dr. Davis had displayed an alarming inability to appreciate his role as an expert and the accompanying privilege to provide opinion evidence.

[37] The defence was alive to his propensity to abuse the role of an expert. His reputation would have been known from the cited decisions. Plaintiff’s counsel succinctly set out the concerns about Dr. Davis in a letter dated January 29, 2010, which stated:

1.         Although he may have once been a qualified expert in psychiatry and able to give opinion evidence in court, we suggest he no longer is properly qualified to give opinion evidence. We will suggest that he is no longer aware of his duty to assist the court and in reality he is an advocate for ICBC. Additionally, we will submit that he has been so consistently discredited by the courts of this Province that he is incapable of being qualified as an expert;

2.         His report is replete with advocacy. The report is an attempt [to] neutralize any material/opinions which support the plaintiff’s claim rather than providing an objective medical opinion;

3.         His report contains many opinions and arguments that are beyond his expertise; and

4.         The information apparently gleaned from the plaintiff is inaccurate and incomplete and coloured to advance his position.

[38] In spite of the concerns that the Courts have expressed, the defence nonetheless proffered Dr. Davis as an expert in opposition to the plaintiff’s complaints of depression and anxiety. My assessment of Dr. Davis was as follows (oral reasons May 13, 2010):

[43]      Dr. Hymie Davis, a psychiatrist, examined Ms. Jayetileke on January 12, 2010 at the request of the defence. I find his evidence to be unreliable. I give it no weight for the following reasons.

[44]      Dr. Davis was an advocate. He was argumentative, defensive, non-responsive, and prone to rambling discourses that were not relevant to the questions posed in cross-examination.

[45]      Dr. Davis was asked to leave the courtroom so that counsel could argue about questions to be put to him. Dr. Davis was seen peeking into the courtroom and listening to the discussion. He was again asked to leave. In spite of these instructions given to him, Dr. Davis hovered within hearing distance and, on four occasions, stuck his head into the courtroom to hear what was occurring.

[46]      Dr. Davis conceded that without his notes, he would not be able to recall the discussion with Ms. Jayetileke. He relied on his notes to prepare his report.

[47] Dr. Davis had noted that Ms. Jayetileke awakened once or twice a week and that this was in some measure related to the accident-related symptoms. He was adamant Ms. Jayetileke had not said that she awakened once or twice a night. He said that his notes would reflect what Ms. Jayetileke had told him.

[48]      His notes referred to Ms. Jayetileke awakening once or twice but did not specify whether that was nightly or weekly. Nonetheless, Dr. Davis tried to point out other references in his notes that meant a weekly occurrence. Those references did not strengthen his evidence. They simply confirmed the unreliability of his testimony.

[49]      Dr. Smith had commented about how important it was for the history-taking to be done in a setting where the patient was comfortable and at ease with the interviewer. Dr. Davis’s demeanour would not lend itself to Ms. Jayetileke being at ease in his presence so that an effective and accurate history could have been taken. Ms. Jayetileke was under the impression that Dr. Davis did not take things seriously. I accept her view of the interview and prefer her evidence to that of Dr. Davis.

[39] For a trial to be fair, the Court must allow each party to put its best case forward. Where a party seeks to advance its position with reckless abandon seeking only the ultimate goal of victory and using questionable evidence along the way, that party risks sanctions in the form of costs penalties. Where the conduct is reprehensible and deserving of reproof and rebuke, the penalty is special costs. “Costs considerations are meant to guide counsel and litigants in the choices and strategies they pursue in litigation”: Karpodinis v. Kantas, 2006 BCCA 400, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2074 at para. 4.

[40] In this case and against the backdrop of previous judicial comment, the defence tendered Dr. Davis. He was nothing more than an advocate thinly disguised in the cloak of an expert. That is conduct deserving of rebuke and from which the Court disassociates itself.

[41] Dr. Davis attempted to inject levity to the proceedings when he was introduced to the Court – his reference to scotch can only be taken as an attempt to be humorous. However, these are serious and solemn proceedings and should be treated as such. His opening comments were unnecessary and unhelpful.

[42] Dr. Davis’ refusal to remove himself from earshot of the Court proceedings despite repeated requests was reprehensible. His conduct simply confirmed a lack of respect for Court proceedings.

[43] Under these circumstances, special costs are to be awarded against the defendant.

[44] The special costs will be the equivalent of the costs of the entire trial. The defendant will be deprived of any costs that it might otherwise have been entitled to as result of the offer to settle.

[45] The plaintiff is awarded costs as if there had been no offer to settle made. The defendant shall receive no costs.

[46] The plaintiff shall receive costs of this application.

New Rules of Court Update: Discontinued Lawsuits and Third Party Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized. 58 Comments on New Rules of Court Update: Discontinued Lawsuits and Third Party Costs


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, interpreting and applying Rule 9-8(5) for what I believe is the first time.  (It’s worth pointing out, however, that this rule reads almost identically to the former Rule 36(5)).  This rule deals with the entitlement of a Third Party to costs when a Plaintiff discontinues a lawsuit.
In today’s case (Patterson v. Williams) the Plaintiff sued two Defendants for personal injuries sustained when a dog knocked her over.  The Defendants denied fault and issued Third Party Proceedings against another dog walker seeking contribution and indemnity.
Ultimately the Plaintiff settled the claim, signed a release in favour of the Defendants and discontinued the lawsuit.  The Third Party then brought a motion asking that the Defendants pay the Third Party’s costs.  The Third Party relied on Rule 9-8(5) which reads as follows:
(5)  If a plaintiff discontinues the whole or any part of an action in which a person has been joined as a third party, the third party, if the discontinuance disposes of the claim against the third party, is entitled to costs and may apply to the court for a direction as to who should pay them.
Mr. Justice Sigurdson dismissed the motion finding that a discontinued lawsuit does not automatically dispose of Defendant claims against a Third Party.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[11]         The third party says that the notice of discontinuance disposes of the third party claim, as it was for contribution and indemnity only and did not include an independent claim. This was so, in the third party’s submission, because the specific wording of the third party notice made the third party claim conditional both on the plaintiff not being contributorily negligent and on the defendant being found liable. According to the third party, these conditions cannot now be satisfied because of the discontinuance.  Mr. Nossal also argues that there is no ongoing claim against the third party because the terms of the Release are on so-called “B.C. Ferry Agreement terms” (British Columbia Ferry Corp. et. al. v. T&N plc. et .al. (1993), 86 B.C.L.R. (2d) 353 (S.C.); (1995), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 115 (C.A.)) that prevent recovery from a third party.

[12]         I think that this application for costs must fail.  While the Release may limit the liability of the defendants and prevent successful third party proceedings against them, the notice of discontinuance itself does not prevent the defendants from continuing third party proceedings against Ms. Parker.

[13]         I do not think it can be said that the filing of the notice of discontinuance by the plaintiff disposes of the claim against the third party by the defendants.

[14]         The claim for contribution is a substantive right that continues to exist notwithstanding a settlement: see A.R. (Al) Smith Ltd. v. Turner, [1984] B.C.J. No. 3107, [1985] 2 W.W.R. 424 (B.C. Co. Ct.), and Canada v. Foundation Co. of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695.

[15]         Moreover, I do not think that the precise terms of the third party notice can be determinative of this application, as the defendants are at liberty to apply to amend the terms of the third party notice.

[16]         Even if the terms of the Release do prevent the defendant from continuing third party proceedings against the third party, which I question, that is a matter of the interpretation of the Release, not something that flows from the filing by the plaintiff of the notice of discontinuance itself.

[17]         Accordingly, the application by the third party for costs is dismissed, with costs.

New Formal Settlement Offer Rule Treated the Same as the Old

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized.


A further decision dealing with the consequences of formal settlement offers under the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules was released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry.
In today’s case (Gregory v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.  Prior to trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer of $164,000.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and at trial was awarded just over $131,000.
ICBC brought an application seeking costs or double costs from the date of the offer onward.  Madam Justice Kloegman agreed that the Plaintiff ought to have accepted the formal settlement offer and accordingly deprived her of her costs and disbursements for the trial and awarded ICBC their costs and disbursements for steps taken shortly after delivery of the formal settlement offer.
In reaching this result the Court noted that Rule 9 (the New Formal Settlement offer rule) should be treated similarly to the old Rule 37B.  Specifically Madam Justice Kloegman noted that “The parties agree that it is likely that the new Supreme Court Rules apply to this application and, in any event, very little turns on whether or not the old or new Rules apply. ”
While ICBC was awarded post offer costs, they were not awarded double costs.  In reaching this decision the Court noted that ICBC’s financial ability to defend a lawsuit was “much greater than the (plaintiff’s) ability to prosecute” and that this factor must be taken into account in exercising judicial discretion under Rule 9.   In considering this factor Madam Justice Kloegman stated as follows “I will not order double costs to the defendant, which would be about $50,000, because the impact on the financial circumstances of the plaintiff and on the amount of her award at trial would be grievous. ”