Skip to main content

More on ICBC Claim Adjournments: Discretion and Court Ordered Conditions

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Uncategorized. 7 Comments on More on ICBC Claim Adjournments: Discretion and Court Ordered Conditions


Rule 12-1(9) gives the BC Supreme Court the discretion to adjourn trials.  When asked for an adjournment the Court must balance the interests of the parties.   When adjourning a trial the Court can attach a variety of conditions which can even include damage advancements in personal injury lawsuits.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this area of law.
In today’s case (Kailay v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in two separate motor vehicle collisions.   The matter was set for trial previously but was adjourned following an application by ICBC.
The Plaintiff became pregnant shortly before the rescheduled trial and this apparently aggravated some of her accident related stress and psychological symptoms.  ICBC argued a further adjournment was necessary as a result of this development.  Master Baker agreed and granted ICBC a second adjournment, however, the Court attached several conditions to this order.  In doing so Master Baker discussed the Court’s ability to attach terms to adjournments and provided the following reasons:
[12] Taking these various positions, I am satisfied of the following. First, the court’s jurisdiction to make an order for conditions of an adjournment that include advances, whether to meet specific costs and expenses, or as simple advances on likely general damages cannot be seriously disputed. ..
13]         I do not accept that liability must be absolutely established before an advance can be ordered. The real issue, in such a case, is: in the event the plaintiff is unsuccessful, can the advance be recovered? I see no reason why that would not be the case here, particularly assuming that any advance would be accompanied by an undertaking from Ms. Kailay in that respect…

[19]         As a consequence of the above, I direct that the conditions of the adjournment will be:

1.       The defence will fund up to 30 further counselling sessions at up to $200.00 per session;

2.       Ms. Kailay will receive $20,000.00 toward her general damages claim;

3.       The defence will advance $10,000.00 toward Ms. Kailay’s costs incurred to date, including, of course, her experts’ fees;

4.       Ms. Kailay will give her undertaking that, in the event her claim fails at trial or that advances to date (including the above) exceed the damages awarded by the court, she will repay the advances as required.

These are the conditions of the adjournment. If, for any reason, the defence does not acknowledge and accept them by March 7 the trial will continue on April 4 as currently scheduled.

[20]         Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.

Injury Trial Adjourned Due to Delayed Medico-Legal Report

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were recently published by the BC Supreme Court addressing the adjournment of a personal injury trial where the Plaintiff’s independently retained physician failed to author a medico-legal report in a timely fashion.
In the recent case (Barlow v. Smoch) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  He was the passenger in a vehicle which collided with a dump truck-trailer.  He apparently suffered serious injuries including a “severe traumatic brain injury with left sided hemiparesis“.
In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff hired a variety of independent experts to provide medico-legal opinion evidence at trial.  One of the experts was a physiatrist who assessed the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff requested a report however no report was provided within the timelines required by the Rules of Court.  The Plaintiff’s other experts required the physiatrist’s report in order to finalize their opinions.  Because the physiatrist did not author the report in a timely fashion the Plaintiff was unable to adequately prepare his case for trial.
The Plaintiff brought an adjournment application.  The Defendant opposed, arguing an adjournment would be prejudicial.  Master Caldwell ultimately granted the adjournment finding that neither party were to blame for the need of the adjournment and that keeping the current trial date would result in prejudice to the Plaintiff.  In granting the adjournment the Court had the following critical comments for the Plaintiff’s expert:

[20]         The determination I have to make now is whether the plaintiff would be so prejudiced by having this matter proceed to trial, in light of all of the circumstances, or whether the defendant would be prejudiced to the extent that there would be some waning of the memory of the defendant Hilborn.

[21]         Remembering of course that the plaintiff is a severely brain?injured individual with hemiparesis, it would behoove me ultimately to weigh the prejudice in favour of the plaintiff and make a determination that the trial ought to be adjourned, not through any fault of counsel or the parties, but more I think because there is an unexplained failure to provide a report following a medical assessment by a medical professional.

[22]         When I say unexplained, I do not say that meaning plaintiff’s counsel has not explained it; I mean (the physiatrist) has not explained her lack of attention to requests for the report following her assessment of the plaintiff on the 31st of May last, which I think is unacceptable.

[23]         I say parenthetically that this may be a matter that counsel and the parties should be taking up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, because in this case it is, without a doubt, in my view, (the physiatrist’s) lack of production of the document requested that has ultimately resulted in the adjournment of the trial.

[24]         As for costs, there is not a lot of blameworthy conduct here over which costs could be assessed.  I think every party has had a legitimate rationale for having the positions they have taken with respect to the particular application, which I find to be somewhat unique in the circumstances.  So I will say that I think each party should bear its own costs of this application.

Justice Harris Discourages Deposition Evidence Absent "Pressing Reasons"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized. 118 Comments on Justice Harris Discourages Deposition Evidence Absent "Pressing Reasons"


Rule 7-8(1) of the BC Supreme Court Rules allows parties to a lawsuit to, by consent, record evidence of witnesses prior to trial by way of Deposition.  Deposition evidence can then be admitted at trial as authorized by Rule 12-5(40).
When evidence is taken prior to trial it is accompanied by certain shortcomings as compared to live courtroom testimony.  Mr. Justice Harris discussed these at length in an Appendix to reasons for judgement released earlier this month.
In this recent case (Byer v. Mills) the Plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision.  In the course of the lawsuit the parties agreed to record much of the evidence by way of pre-trial deposition.  Ultimately the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was dismissed.  Mr. Justice Harris shared some concerns about the shortcomings that can be created by deposition evidence at trial and suggested that counsel only agree to pre-trial depositions when there are ‘pressing reasons to do so‘.  The Court provided the following feedback to BC litigants:

a)    The majority of the defence evidence of fact was taken by deposition before trial began. This was done by consent as the Civil Rules permit. I presume it was done to convenience the witnesses, most of whom live in or near Quesnel and to save the expense of bringing witnesses to testify “live” before the court in Vancouver.

b)    During the course of one deposition, I expressed some reservations about using depositions in this way. What follows are some reflections triggered by the use of this practice, and are not comments directly arising from the way counsel in the case before me conducted the depositions. They are also not complete, but merely illustrative of the kind of problems that arise by taking evidence by deposition.

c)     It is well settled in our trial practice that the basic rule is that witnesses should testify live before the court. This proposition is reflected in Civil Rule12-5 (27) and in the many cases in which our courts have considered the basis on which to exercise their discretion to make an order that evidence be taken by deposition.

d)    In this case, the defence evidence was taken before trial and therefore before the plaintiff had led any evidence at all. In my view, there are good reasons why in a conventional trial a plaintiff is required to lead evidence first on matters on which he or she bears the burden of proof. The defence is then required to respond to the plaintiff’s case, including leading evidence on any matters on which it carries the burden. This provides an orderly framework for the receipt of evidence by the court. It helps keep the relevance of evidence in focus.

e)    Taking defence evidence first carries with it risks and potential inefficiencies. First, there is the risk that a defendant may not correctly anticipate what the plaintiff’s evidence turns out to be at trial. The defence evidence may not be properly responsive to the plaintiff’s case. Evidence may be taken that is unnecessary. Issues may not be adequately addressed in the defence case, creating the risk that a party may need to apply to have a witness who has been deposed supplement his or her evidence. It seems to me to be generally undesirable to take trial evidence out of the normal order.

f)      There are further difficulties inherent in taking evidence by deposition. The evidence is not taken live and its receipt as trial evidence is not controlled by the trial judge as the evidence is being given. Objections may be made, as occurred in this case. Inevitably, the objection is made and left on the record. The witness then provides the evidence to which there is an objection, subject to a later ruling.

g)    This seems to me to be unsatisfactory. It is preferable that objections be ruled on before the evidence is given for a number of reasons. First, if the objection is upheld, a witness does not spend time answering improper questions. Where several witnesses are testifying about the same matter, a ruling at the outset will limit the scope of the evidence of all the subsequent witnesses. Secondly, it is not uncommon for counsel to frame questions in an objectionable manner, even though there are ways properly to elicit the evidence counsel is seeking. It is far better for the court to have the opportunity to ensure that questions are properly framed and evidence properly received than to try to “unscramble an omelette” after the fact. This is not just a practical issue. Often the way in which evidence is elicited can affect the weight it is entitled to receive. There is a risk of substantive prejudice to the parties if the trial judge is denied the opportunity at the time it is given to ensure that evidence is properly received.

h)    Finally, the trial judge has an important additional role to play in controlling the trial process. It is not uncommon for a trial judge to be called on during cross-examination, either at the request of counsel or on his or her own initiative, to control the conduct of the cross-examination. For example, it may be necessary to decide how much of a prior allegedly inconsistent statement ought properly to be put to a witness. That is a decision that should be made at the time the witness is confronted with the statement. Taking evidence by deposition necessarily deprives the trial judge of an essential judicial function. Doing so is fraught with risks to the trial process and risks substantive prejudice to the parties.

i)       I appreciate the Civil Rules permit depositions to be taken by consent. In my view, the purpose of allowing this to occur by consent is to obviate the need for an order where it is clear that the circumstances exist that would lead a court to make an order. Generally, the party applying to take evidence by deposition has a burden to meet to justify departing from the general rule that evidence be given live. I will not rehearse the law on this point. But I do not think the drafters of the Civil Rules intended to encourage a practice that is inconsistent with conventional trial practice.

j)      It follows from my comments above that I would discourage counsel from electing to resort to taking depositions by consent unless there are pressing reasons to do so. If there are legitimate concerns about cost and convenience, there are provisions permitting taking evidence by video conference. At least then the evidence is taken live.

New Rules of Court Update: Contested Applications At CPC's and TMC's

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 5, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on New Rules of Court Update: Contested Applications At CPC's and TMC's


(Note: this area of law is still developing, for a further case addressing this issue click here)
Two of the biggest changes under the New Supreme Court Rules are the introduction of Case Planning Conferences and mandatory Trial Management Conferences (CPC’s and TMC’s).
The New Rules give the Court significant powers to make various orders with respect to the conduct of lawsuits at these hearings.  Interesting reasons were recently brought to my attention addressing the limit of the Court to address contested matters at CPC’s and TMC’s.
In the recent case (Vernon v. British Columbia (Liquor Distribution Branch)) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for wrongful dismissal.  As the lawsuit progressed the parties attended a Trial Management Conference.  At the TMC the Defendant asked for various orders including an adjournment of the upcoming trial and a partial publication ban of the trial.  These applicaitons were contested by the Plaintiff.  Mr. Justice Goepel dismissed the applications finding that TMC’s and CPC’s were inappropriate forums for contested applications.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[21]        The issue in this case is whether counsel’s statements provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the orders that the defendant seeks. The applications for an adjournment and a publication ban both require the exercise of judicial discretion to consider competing interests. In the case of the adjournment, the contest is between the defendant’s need for additional time to prepare its case and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the case is adjourned. With regard to the publication ban, the court must weigh the salutary effect

[22]        The adjournment and publication ban applications both require a proper evidentiary foundation. Statements of counsel alone are not sufficient. To paraphrase Lambert J.A. in Nichols, where statements of counsel stand alone, it will be a rare case that such statements will be sufficient to justify a finding of fact that would permit the exercise of judicial discretion. This is not such a case.

[23]        While CPCs and TMCs have a role to play in the orderly progress of litigation, they are not generally the forum to determine contested applications. Such applications will usually require affidavit evidence and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12-2(11) and 5-3(2) applications requiring affidavit evidence cannot to be heard at such conferences. In this case affidavit evidence is necessary to determine the defendant’s applications for an adjournment and a publication ban. Those applications cannot be heard at a TMC.

[24]        This is not to say that a judge cannot make orders at a CPC or a TMC. Clearly, a judge can. Many of the orders contemplated at such a conference will not require applications or affidavit evidence. The Rules allow a judge to make an order absent an application. Many of the orders suggested in the respective rules are procedural in nature and more in the nature of directions. Such orders can be based on the representations of counsel. An example is the present application concerning the order of proceedings at trial.

Uncertain Prognosis Results in Injury Trial Adjournment

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Uncategorized.


As previously discussed, it is risky to settle an ICBC claim prior to knowing the long-term prognosis of your injuries.  Without a prognosis it is difficult to value a case and therfore difficult to gauge a fair settlement amount.
The same caution holds true for taking a case to trial.  Absent recovery or a meaningful prognosis it will be difficult for a judge or jury to properly value the claim.  If a case is set for trial but the prognosis is unknown an adjournment can often be obtained pursuant to Rule 12-1(9).  This was demonstrated in short but useful reasons for judgement released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In last week’s case (Cochrane v. Heir) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision.  She was scheduled to undergo surgery in February, 2011 and her lawsuit was set for trial shortly thereafter.  The Plaintiff was concerned that her prognosis would not be known at the time of trial and applied to adjourn.  The Defendant opposed arguing that the upcoming surgery was not related to the collision and the adjournment was not necessary.
Mr. Justice Harris concluded that ultimately it would be for the jury to decide whether the surgery was related to the crash, however, since it may be related an adjournment was in the interests of justice.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[3] There is some medical evidence before the court to the effect that the plaintiff’s condition, prognosis and ability to return to work cannot fairly be assessed until after the surgery and after sufficient time has been allowed for rehabilitation.

[4] Counsel for the defendant opposes the adjournment because this is, he submits, a unique case. In a nutshell, he says that the delays and behaviour of the plaintiff in presenting the case are characteristic of her conduct in other matters she has been involved in. In effect, he submits that I should discount the evidence in support of the adjournment. In particular, I should be sceptical of the suggestion of any causal link between the accident and the condition that has led to the proposed surgery, as well as the need or the surgery itself. All an adjournment will do is expand the trial and encourage further delay and obstruction in bringing this matter to trial.

[5] Since I have decided that the interests of justice require an adjournment and since I am the trial judge, albeit with a jury, I have concluded that it would be unwise to comment directly on the evidence referred to by the parties in support of their positions. The issue of the causal connection between the accident, the plaintiff’s current condition and her alleged inability to work, are the primary matters that will be before the court for adjudication. Not to grant an adjournment would work relatively greater prejudice to the plaintiff than to the defendants by constraining her opportunity fully to present her case whatever its merits at trial.

Late Examinations for Discovery and the New BC Supreme Court Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing the right to conduct an examination for discovery in the two weeks proceeding trial under the New Civil Rules.
In today’s case (Lewis v. Lewis) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  ICBC was a statutory third party in the lawsuit and failed to exercise their right to examine the Plaintiff for discovery in a timely fashion.  ICBC served the Plaintiff with an appointment to attend a discovery 10 days before trial.  The Plaintiff objected arguing, amongst other things, that discoveries are not permitted within the two weeks prior to trial.  ICBC applied for an order compelling the Plaintiff to attend.
In support of their application ICBC argued that the prohibition preventing discoveries in the two weeks preceding trial no longer exists in the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules.   Mr. Justice Harvey, while not directly addressing this issue, dismissed ICBC’s motion and in doing so made it clear that the rules of Court operate so as to make it difficult for a party to be permitted to conduct a late discovery.  Mr. Justice Harvey provided the following reasons:
[7]  In response to (ICBC’s argument) Mr. Parsons, on behalf of the plaintiff, says that a clear reading of Rule 12-4(3) makes clear that the new rules still contemplate a prohibition against any step, including an examination for discovery, within the period prescribed in Rule 12-4(2).
[8] Rule 12-4(2) reads
A trial certificate must be filed at least 14 days before but not more than 28 days before the scheduled trial date.
[9] I am not persuaded in these circumstances I need to decide that very interesting issue, because I have also been referred to Rule 12-4(6) which says that:
A party who fails to file a trial certificate under subrule (1) is not, without leave of the court, entitled to make further applications.
[10]  The third party has not filed a trial certificate nor could they have given the requirement to have conpleted examinations for discovery as part of the requirement of “readiness”.  Now, 10 days before trial, it is too late to do so.
[11]  Counsel for the third party see this as an excuse allowing them to, at this late date, seek the Court’s leave for the application to compel the plaintiff’s attendance at the proposed discovery.
[12]  That, with respect, is disingenuous.  It has been open to the third party to conduct its discovery since the time it became a party.  That was in October of 2008.
[13]  Instead, the third party has chosen to rely on the defendant to take the lead in this litigation…
[14]  The third party has, at the last moment, unilaterally set down an examination for discovery over the objections of counsel for the plaintiff as to timing.  Counsel is busy with trial preparation for a 15 day jury trial.
[15]  The third party failed to provide conduct money and failed to file a trial certificate in accordance with the rules…
[16]  Contrary to the Rules, leave was not sought to bring the application when short leave was sought before the Master who heard the application.  The application for short leave was brought without notice and counsel for the plaintiff was unable to draw to the Court’s attention the failure of the third party to (1) require leave for their application and (2) failure to provide conduct money to the plaintiff.
[17]  In those circumstances, I am not prepared to gran the third party the leave required to bring this motion.

The BC Supreme Court and Adjournments of Lengthy Trials: The "20-Plus" Program

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.

I’ve previously written about adjournment applications in the BC Supreme Court and that Judges hearing such applications must consider a “balancing (of) the interests of the parties” . Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court indicating that, at least with lengthy trials, a third factor is in play; specifically the “public interest” must be considered.
In this week’s case (Jones v. Donaghey) the Plaintiff sued for damages claiming he was seriously brain damaged when one of the Defendant’s assaulted him.   The Plaintiff was a newborn at the time of the alleged assault and would be four years old at the time of the proposed trial.
The defendants sought an adjournment of the trial arguing that further time was needed in order to obtain proper medical evidence.  Ultimately Mr. Justice Macaulay disagreed and refused the adjournment application.  Prior to doing so, however, the Court indicated that the interests of not only the parties must be considered in adjournment applications of lengthy trials, but also the public interest.  Mr. Justice Macaulay provided the following useful reasons:

[3] Although I address the balancing of the interests of the parties separately below, the public interest is also impacted by the scheduling, and any potential rescheduling of lengthy trials. Considerable public and judicial resources are tied up in the intensive pre-trial management and conduct of trials under what is colloquially known as the “20-plus” program. The court instituted the program some time ago to assist in the management and scheduling of complex civil cases.

[4] Generally, in my view, every effort should be made to avoid the adjournment of trials once set under the program, as litigants in other cases have had to forgo the opportunity to set down their applications or trials for hearing, because either or both the trial management judge’s rota time and court time have been reserved for a 20?plus case.

[5] In more general terms, perhaps, Levine J., as she then was, referred to the need to consider such broader interests of justice when deciding an adjournment application respecting a long trial in Strata Plan VR No. 2000 v. Shaw, at para. 26. Justice Dorgan referred to the above with apparent approval in denying a defence application for an adjournment in J.S. (Guardian ad litem of) v. D.S., at para 17.

More on ICBC Injury Claims, Trials and Adjournments

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


As I’ve previously discussed, if you’re not prepared to proceed to trial and ICBC opposes an adjournment it’s necessary to apply for a Court order under Rule 12-1(9) of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules.  Reasons for judgment were released earlier this month by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, dealing with such an application.
In today’s case (Allan v. Houston) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 motor vehicle collision.  His injuries apparently included a fracture at the L4 level of his spine and a traumatic brain injury.  His case was set for trial in December 2010.  His treating specialists were apparently unable to “complete assessments of the plaintiff such that a court would be provided with an opinion with respect to the injuries sustained and the prognosis that the plaintiff faces“.  In addition to this, the Plaintiff switched lawyers shortly before the scheduled trial.  The new lawyer was unavailable for the previously scheduled trial.  He sought an adjournment but ICBC refused.  On application the BC Supreme Court ordered that the trial be adjourned.  Mr. Justice Dley provided the following reasons:
[7]  The defendant resists the application for an adjournment on the basis that this matter has been set for trial for some time, that the incident occurred almost three years ago, and, as a result of the heavily contested liability issues, that memories may fade as time continues on.
[8]  Counsel for the plaintiff emphasizes two factors:
that there has been a change of counsel, and that the plaintiff’s new counsel would be unavailable for trial; and
that there is the practical aspect of securing further medical information to ensure that the court is in a position to properly assess the damages, if in fact liability has been proven.
[9]  There is also a third aspect that needs to be considered, and that is the issue of the second motor vehicle accident.  The injuries sustained, it is alleged, in the second accident aggravated those in the first.  In order to ensure that justice can be done for all parties it would be beneficial to have the same trier of fact dealing with both accidents at the same time, as it is anticipated and suggested by counsel for the plaintiff.
[10]  In order for there to be a fair trial, the only rational outcome of this application is to grant the adjournment:  first, to ensure that plaintiff’s counsel is available; second, to ensure that the court has the benefit of the necessary medical information; and thirdly, to ensure that all efficiencies are taken into account to have both accidents dealt with at the same time.
The Court went on to award the Plaintiff costs.  In doing so Mr. Justice Dley reminded defence counsel that “this was an application that should have been given far more serious consideration than what it was by the defence.  There are certain courtesies that should be given during the course of any litigation: one is the availability of counsel and two is the practical aspect of proceeding to trial with all of the necessary information“.

More Confusion Clarified: Trial Notices Under Former Rules Remain Valid Under New Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 24, Uncategorized. 59 Comments on More Confusion Clarified: Trial Notices Under Former Rules Remain Valid Under New Rules


One of the changes under the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules relates to setting a matter down for trial.  Under the former rules a Notice of Trial was to be delivered “by a plaintiff after the time has expired for the delivery of a statement of defence or by any party after the close of pleadings“.  Under the new Rule 12-1(2) any party may deliver a Notice of Trial at any time after the commencement of a proceeding.
There has been some debate whether Notices of Trial filed under the former rules remained valid under the new rules or whether parties need to file a new Notice of Trial in these circumstances.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with this procedural issue ruling that a new Notice of Trial is not necessary in circumstances where one was filed under the former rules.
In this week’s case (Sim v. Learmouth) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The lawsuit was started under the former rules.  ICBC, as statutory third party, filed a Notice of Trial and Jury Notice in May, 2009.  The Plaintiff did not file their own jury notice in the time lines required under the former rules.  When the New Rules came into force the Plaintiff served a new Notice of Trial and Jury Notice.  The Plaintiff argued that Rule 12-1(6) requires party’s to file a new Notice of Trial.  ICBC disagreed and argued that the Plaintiff’s jury notice was invalid.
Master Keighley agreed with ICBC and struck the Plaintiff’s Jury Notice.  In doing so the Court explained that party’s do not need to file a Notice of Trial under the New Rules if one was filed under the former rules.  The Court provided the following useful reasons:

[17]         It only remains to be considered whether the transitional provision is effective to allow delivery of a further Notice of Trial and a re-setting of the clock with regards to the filing and serving of a Jury Notice.

[18]         In my view, it is not, for the following reasons:

(a)      The applicant’s delivery of their Notice of Trial and Jury Notice were “steps taken before July 1, 2010”;

(b)      Any right or obligation arising out of delivery of the Notice of Trial had effect on the day of delivery, namely the trial date was secured, subject to an adjournment by agreement or order. It had no other effect thereafter;

(c)      Delivery of the Jury Notice was effective to notify the parties of records as to the applicant’s intention to have a trial by judge and jury on the date of delivery. It had no other effect thereafter, although a jury trial would only be secured by a further step, the payment of jury fees prior to trial. The Notice itself, however, was fully effective on delivery.

BC Rules of Court Update: The Adverse Witness Rule

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


The Rules of Court permit parties to a lawsuit to force opposing parties to take the stand during the course of a lawsuit.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing this power under the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules.
In today’s case (Dawson v. Tolko) the Plaintiffs were current and former employees of Tolko Industries.   Tolko Industries amended a pension plan it offered it’s employees.  During the course of this occurring another Defendant in the lawsuit, Mr. Mercier, assisted and advised Tolko Industries on issues relating to the offer made to the employees to change from a defined benefit pension plan to a defined contribution plan.
The Plaintiff’s sued Tolko and Mercier alleging that they did not act in good faith during this period.  Prior to trial the Plaintiffs lawyer examined Mr. Mercier extensively.  During the course of the trial the Plaintiffs wished to put Mr. Mercier on the stand.
The Defendant objected arguing that this was not necessary as he would take the stand in the defence and could be cross-examined at that time and further that the Plaintiff could read his discovery evidence in at trial.
Mr. Justice Butler rejected the Defendant’s argument and ordered that he take the stand.  In doing so the Court canvassed the power of litigants to put adverse parties on the stand in the BC Supreme Court.  In doing so the Court found that authorities developed under the former Rules remain helpful.  Specifically Mr. Justice Butler held as follows:

[6]             The Rules provide that the plaintiff may call an adverse party as a witness for cross-examination as part of the plaintiff’s case.  This may be done either by delivering the notice (as was done in this case), issuing a subpoena, or calling the adverse party as a witness if he or she is in the courtroom.

[7]             In my decision in Canadian Bedding Company Ltd. v. Western Sleep Products Ltd., 2008 BCSC 1444, I considered an application to set aside a notice delivered under the provisions in the former Rules in circumstances that were very similar to the circumstances in this case.  I dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the notice.  In doing so, I examined the three different ways in which an adverse party could be called as a witness in the plaintiff’s case and the differences in the provisions for setting aside the notice or subpoena.  The provisions in the current Rules are, with one exception, the same and so my analysis is relevant to the current Rules…

[16]         I agree that the natural unfolding of the narrative can be impacted by use of the adverse party witness rule and that the use of the rule may unnecessarily prolong the trial.  However, I do not agree that the adverse party witness rule was intended to be limited to situations where the evidence sought to be elicited cannot be satisfactorily tendered in any other way.  The use of an adverse party witness may, in certain circumstances, be an effective way to prove a party’s case.  Counsel should not be deprived of that option when the language in the adverse party witness rule does not contain that limitation.

[17]         I have arrived at this conclusion on the basis of my analysis of the former Rules set out in Canadian Bedding.  In my view, the differences in the discretion given to a trial judge depending on how the adverse party witness is called to be a witness are important and cannot be ignored.

[18]         The Rules establish a hierarchy of discretionary considerations depending on how the adverse party witness is compelled to testify.  When a notice has been properly served pursuant to Rule 12-5(21), the witness and counsel have ample time to prepare for the cross-examination and design a trial strategy to deal with the fact that the defendant will be an adverse party witness.  Accordingly, the court is given a limited jurisdiction to set aside the notice.  It is only where the “evidence of the person is unnecessary” that the court can set aside the notice.  I cannot read Rule 12-5(23)(b) as equivalent to Rule 12-5(39), which states that a subpoena may be set aside where “compliance with it is unnecessary.”  The wording of Rule 12-5(39) must encompass a broader range of considerations including a consideration of the steps already taken in the case and whether compliance with the subpoena is necessary for the proper conduct of the trial.

[19]         Further, as I noted in Canadian Bedding, the discretion granted to the court must be exercised with restraint.  In De Sousa v. Kuntz (1988), 24 B.C.L.R. (2d) 206 (C.A.), Wallace J.A. cautioned that it was only in a clear case that a judge should exercise his discretion to set aside a subpoena on the ground of necessity.  He emphasized, at 214, the need for a judge to be acutely aware that if he sets aside a subpoena:

… he is substituting his view for that of counsel as to the need to subpoena a certain witness and that he will seldom have as complete an appreciation as counsel does of the benefits – both tactical and substantive – that a litigant may derive from calling a certain witness.

That caution applies with equal force in relation to the adverse party witness rules.  If plaintiff’s counsel decides to utilize the adverse party witness rule in order to satisfy the onus of proof borne by the plaintiff, the court should be reluctant to interfere.

[20]         In arriving at his conclusion in Strother, I also note that Lowry J.A. specifically stated at para. 43 that he intended “no imposition of any procedural limitation.”  If I were to accede to Mr. Mercier’s interpretation of the adverse party witness rule, it would add a gloss that does not appear in the current Rules.  It would impose a procedural limitation which does not appear in the adverse party witness rule.

[21]         Mr. Mercier cannot show that his evidence is “unnecessary”.  Mr. Poulus’s undertaking to call him as a witness and the fact of the extensive examination for discovery is not relevant to that consideration.  Accordingly, I decline to set aside the notice pursuant to Rule 12-5(23)(b).