Skip to main content

More on the Affidavit Evidence Prohibition At TMC's and CPC's

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 5, Uncategorized. 53 Comments on More on the Affidavit Evidence Prohibition At TMC's and CPC's


Further to my recent post on this topic, the law regarding the Affidavit Prohibition at Case Planning Conferences and Trial Management Conferences appears to be taking shape.  Useful reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, taking a common sense approach to this prohibition.
In this week’s case (Enns v. Cahan) the Plaintiff sued for damages under the Family Compensation Act.  A trial management conference was held and the Defendant brought an application to strike the Plaintiff’s Jury Notice.  The Defendant did not provide any affidavits in support of his application relying only on the pleadings and an expert report which was intended to be introduced at trial.  The Defendant argued the case was too complex for a jury.
The application was dismissed with Madam Justice Gray finding that the case could appropriately be heard by a Jury.  Prior to making this finding the Court provided the following useful reasons about when it’s appropriate for a contested application to be heard at a TMC given the affidavit evidence prohibition:

[9] Rule 12-2(11) provides that:

(11)  A trial management conference judge must not, at a trial management conference,

(a) hear any application for which affidavit evidence is required, or

(b) make an order for final judgment, except by consent.

[10] Mr. Brun, Q.C., argued on behalf of Mr. Cahan that his application could proceed without affidavit evidence and on the basis of submissions by counsel alone. Mr. Brun provided the Court with a copy of the Bruce-Aldridge report and seeks to rely on that and the statement of claim as the basis for his application. Mr. LeBlanc argued on behalf of Mr. Enns that Mr. Cahan’s application requires evidence and that it is therefore one of the prohibited orders set out in Rule 12-2(11).

[11] The new Rules include Rule 1-3 as follows:

(1)  The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.

(2)  Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to

(a) the amount involved in the proceeding,

(b) the importance of the issues in dispute, and

(c) the complexity of the proceeding.

[12] The new Rules have procedures which enable the court and the parties to design the procedure necessary to resolve a particular issue which is in question. The question of whether an application requires affidavit evidence will not always be determined by what remedy is sought. The question of what is in dispute will play a role, as well. In this case, Mr. Brun’s submissions are based on the Bruce-Aldridge report and the statement of claim. It is not necessary to require the parties to go to the trouble and expense of preparing affidavits when counsel can simply provide the court with a copy of the report in question and the pleadings.

[13] In my view, requiring affidavit evidence would not be consistent with the object of securing the inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. Here, counsel agree that the Bruce-Aldridge report was tendered by Mr. Enns as a report he intends to rely on at trial as an expert report. As I have said, that report, together with the statement of claim, form the basis of Mr. Brun’s submissions. As a result, Mr. Cahan’s application can proceed as an application before the trial management judge.

More on Costs and Sufficient Reason to Sue in the BC Supreme Court

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


Earlier this year the BC Court of Appeal provided much needed clarity to the factors Courts can consider when deciding whether a Plaintiff has sufficient reasons to sue in the Supreme Court when considering costs consequences following trial.   Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal further addressing this topic finding that while the Court can consider other issues, the value of the claim will be one of the most important factors.
In today’s case (Gehlen v. Rana) the Plaintiff was injured when she was a passenger involved in a rear-end car crash.  The Defendant admitted fault for the crash but denied liability to the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff “was not present in the vehicle at the time of the accident“.  The Defendant made a formal offer to settle the Plaintiff’s claim for $22,000 plus disbursements.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  After trial the Jury awarded the Plaintiff total damages of just over $13,000.
Despite this result the trial judge awarded the Plaintiff costs and found the Plaintiff has sufficient reason to sue in the Supreme Court.  The BC Court of Appeal found this was in error and in doing so provided these reasons addressing the issue of “sufficient reason” to sue in the BC Supreme Court in a personal injury claim:

[35] In Gradek, the Court interpreted the meaning of “sufficient reason” in Rule 57(10).  The Court acknowledged that the procedures available in the Small Claims Court will, in most cases, “enable the parties to proceed in a cost-efficient manner to a just result” (para. 18).

[36] The Court ultimately concluded that “sufficient reason” was not intended by the Legislature to be limited to the quantum as assessed at the outset of the claim.  However, the Court stated, at paras. 16 and 20:

[16]      The words “sufficient reason” are not defined in the Rules of Court.  In their ordinary and grammatical sense, they do not suggest a specific limitation in terms of application, although it is clear that “any reason” will not do.  The reason has to be “sufficient”, but there is nothing in the Rule to suggest that it has to be connected solely to the quantum of the claim.  On the other hand, the words do not connote the exercise of a discretion, with its attendant deferential standard of review.  That point was made by this Court in Reimann v. Aziz, 2007 BCCA 448, 72 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 13:  …

…

[20]      I accept that the narrow interpretation of the words “sufficient reason” advocated by the appellant would provide greater certainty to litigants in knowing the consequences of proceeding in Supreme Court where the matter falls within the Small Claims monetary limit.  But I agree with the trial judge that if the Legislature had intended to limit the scope of the words “sufficient reason” to the extent suggested by the appellant, it could readily have done so.  While I am satisfied that the words, “sufficient reason” should not be interpreted in an expansive manner, but with restraint, I am also satisfied that they must be read in such a way that a trial judge is not forced to deny a party costs where he is satisfied, as here, that justice can only be achieved as between the parties by an award of costs to the successful party.

[37] As I understand the import of Gradek, it is that likely quantum, while perhaps the most important factor for determination of sufficient reason, is not the only factor that may be taken into account.  The Court in Gradek also accepted that there may be other circumstances that justify bringing an action in the Supreme Court despite the fact that the likely quantum will not exceed the Small Claims amount.  Thus, in Gradek the Court accepted the trial judge’s finding that Mr. Gradek, due to language difficulties, required the assistance of counsel and it would be unjust to require him to bring his claim in the Small Claims Court where he would be denied costs that would partially offset the expense of retaining counsel (para. 18).  However, it is clear from Gradekthat the burden is on the plaintiff to establish eligible circumstances that are persuasive and compelling to justify “sufficient reason”.

[38] In the case at bar, the plaintiff reiterated before us the 12 reasons submitted to the trial judge to establish sufficient reason to commence the action in the Supreme Court.  However, eight of those reasons were circumstances that arose after the commencement of the action and were thus irrelevant to the analysis (the defendant’s offer to settle; the defendant’s failure to apply to move the action to the Small Claims Court; the defendant’s denial of liability for the plaintiff’s injury; the insurer’s characterization of the collision as low impact; the exchange of 60 documents; the defendant’s motion for a Rule 66 hearing and eventual removal; a Rule 28 examination of a witness; and the absence of expert evidence tendered by the defendant).

[39] The strongest reason for bringing the action in the Supreme Court related to the plaintiff’s alleged injuries, but that must be closely examined in light of her pre-existing condition.  While minor impacts do not necessarily preclude serious injuries, it must have been apparent to the plaintiff that after this minor collision her pre-existing condition was only modestly aggravated and would not attract a significant award of damages.

[40] In my opinion, the plaintiff has not identified a compelling circumstance that meets the sufficient reason test in Rule 57(10) as interpreted by Gradek.

[41] In my view, this was a case where it was plain and obvious at all material times that this was a proper action to be tried in the Small Claims Court.

Jury Notice Struck in Complex "Shaken Baby" Case

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


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, striking a Jury Notice in a complex “shaken baby” case.
In this week’s case (Sivertson (Guardian ad litem of) v. Dutrisac) the Plaintiff claimed damages “for a brain injury suffered on June 11, 2001 while in the care of the defendant Dutrisac who was the owner and operator of a licensed daycare… The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Dutrisac was negligent in her care of the infant plaintiff, resulting in his fall to the floor where he struck his head and suffered a brain injury.  They claim that following the initial injury, Dutrisac further exacerbated that injury when she allegedly shook or jostled the infant so as to have him remain conscious.  The plaintiffs’ claim against the CHR is that it was negligent in its ongoing inspections of the daycare facility and in continuing to license that facility notwithstanding a number of complaints made by various parents over the weeks and months preceding the infant plaintiff’s injury.”
The Defendants brought an application pursuant to Rule 12-6(5) to strike the Plaintiff’s Jury Notice.  Madam Justice Boyd agreed that the case was not appropriate for a Jury to preside over and granted the application.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[16] Having considered the submissions of counsel and having reviewed the many expert reports which have been filed, I find that there are a plethora of elements in this case which raise issues of both complexity and intricacy.  The trial will be long.  It will involve two sets of defendants, each involving different standards of care.  The CHR defendants’ duty of care will be particularly complex to determine, given the statutory scheme and whether or not that scheme negates any private duty of care.

[17] However most complex of all will be the issues concerning the causation of the infant plaintiff’s brain injury, whether there was any pre-existing brain injury, and what damages may be attributed to the pre-existing brain injury, if any.  The determination of these issues will require that the jury consider and weigh the conflicting and highly complex evidence of a number of different medical experts from a number of different specialties.

[18] At the heart of this debate will be the central theme of the “shaken baby syndrome”, since, even on the basis of the plaintiffs’ expert’s amended opinion, the acceleration/deceleration theory of injury is advanced regarding the jostling of the child, following the initial fall.  As Mr. Lindsay has pointed out, the Shaken Baby Syndrome or the acceleration/deceleration mechanism of injury remains one of the most highly debated areas in the field of forensic pathology.  The debate continues to rage in the medical and scientific community concerning these types of injuries in infant children.  In this regard, I take particular note of the comments of Chief Judge Crabtree of the British Columbia Provincial Court in British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service v. Z.B., 2011 BCPC 0072.

[19] I must note that while I have treated this application to strike the jury notice as a joint defence application, in fact, in my companion ruling I have already dismissed the action against the CHR.  In my view this does not result in any different ruling regarding the striking of the jury notice.

[20] On a consideration of all of these issues, but most particularly the medical and scientific evidence to be weighed, I find it is completely unrealistic to believe that even a well instructed, intelligent jury would be able to cope with the determination of all the issues here.  Thus I exercise my discretion under the rule and order that the jury notice be struck in this case.

Damages Awarded in "No Impact" Motor Vehicle Incident

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


As previously discussed, given the right circumstances a lawsuit for damages following a motor vehicle incident can succeed even if there is no impact between vehicles.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this reality.
In this week’s case (Pang v. Dhalla) the Defendant made a lane change into the Plaintiff’s lane of travel.  This was done negligently forcing the Plaintiff to bring his vehicle to an abrupt stop.   The Plaintiff alleged the incident caused a disk injury although this claim was rejected.  Despite this the Court found the Plaintiff did suffer some modest soft tissue injuries due to the Defendant’s negligence and assessed non-pecuniary damages at $5,000.  In finding the Defendant liable for damages caused in a ‘no-impact’ incident Madam Justice Dillon provided the following reasons:

[7] Based upon this evidence, the plaintiff has not proven that there probably was an impact or collision between the vehicles. At best, the plaintiff hard braked to avoid an accident after the defendant turned into his lane. From the actions of the plaintiff in slowing as it became apparent that the defendant was moving her vehicle into his lane and from the evidence of the defendant, I conclude that the defendant signalled her lane change. It cannot be determined that Ms. Lee was in a position to see or not to see a signal.

[8] However, the defendant was negligent in changing lanes before ascertaining that it could be made safely without affecting the travel of another vehicle, in this case, the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant had to hard brake to avoid an accident. If the defendant had looked at her blind spot, she would have determined that she could not safely enter the curb lane. Her failure to do so caused the plaintiff to hard brake….

[20] In my view, the plaintiff has not proven that the braking of his vehicle to prevent an accident caused anything other than a minor exacerbation of pre-existing pain in his neck, shoulder, and lower back. Because of his failure to fully inform both doctors, their opinions about the accident causing a disc injury are seriously undermined. The minor nature of the injuries is supported by the fact that the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder symptoms resolved within a few months, the plaintiff did not take time off work, and he needed little medication. The effect on lifestyle was minimal.

[21] The defendant provided a range of damage for non-pecuniary loss of $2,500 to $5,000. The plaintiff described a range of $20,000 to $40,000. Having considered the cases provided, I conclude that an award of $5,000 is appropriate.

More on the Scope of the Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized. 65 Comments on More on the Scope of the Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality


An important and developing area of law in BC relates to the implied undertaking of confidentiality.  When a lawsuit for damages is brought in the BC Supreme Court, the parties are required to make disclosure of certain relevant documents even if such disclosure is harmful to their interests.
In order to strike a balance between fulsome disclosure and privacy rights, the Courts have developed a rule known as the “implied undertaking of confidentiality” which prohibits a party who receives this forced disclosure from making use of the documents/information outside of the lawsuit without consent of the other parties or a court order.  Reasons for judgement were recently brought to my attention (thanks to Dan Michaluk) clarifying that the implied undertaking even covers documents obtained from the Crown by a party charged with a criminal offence.
While the recent case (R. v. Basi) is a criminal case it is relevant for personal injury lawsuits.  Often times a Defendant in a civil lawsuit faces criminal consequences prior to a civil action.  In the course of the initial prosecution relevant documents are produced.  Many of these documents are equally relevant in a subsequent civil lawsuit.  In clarifying that the implied undertaking extends to these documents precluding their automatic use in subsequent civil proceedings Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie provided the following reasons:

[42] If Bennett J.’s statement left any doubt about the existence of an implied undertaking rule in British Columbia, I would affirm that an accused who receives disclosure material pursuant to the Crown’s Stinchcombe obligations, or to a court order, does so subject to an implied undertaking not to disclose its contents for any purpose other than making full answer and defence in the proceeding.

[43] The basis for this implied undertaking is in the sound policy reasons expressed in Wagg and Taylor and also discussed in the Martin report, all referred to above. As recognized in the civil context in Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 359 (C.A.) at 367-368 referring to Lindsey v. Le Suer (1913), 29 O.L.R. 648 (C.A.), the undertaking flows as a necessary implication from the limited purpose for which the recipient has been given access to the documents.

[44] I am aware that the Court in Wagg was reluctant to lay down a rule in the criminal context that could have significant consequences in other types of litigation. However, I am satisfied this concern does not present a barrier in British Columbia in light of the jurisprudence of this Court and the recognition by our Court of Appeal that the practice in this province is not make use ofStinchcombe material for collateral purposes.

[45] As a result, I am satisfied that because the proceeding is over for which the disclosure was provided, the respondents are not entitled to make any further use of the material that remains subject to the undertaking.

I am having a difficult time reconciling this decision with the recent case of Cochrane v. Heir which indicates that Rule 7-1(1)(a)(i) would automatically force a litigant to list relevant documents in a civil suit notwithstanding the implied undertaking of confidentiality.  I suspect the Court of Appeal will eventually be asked to weigh in on this issue.  In the meantime parties to a lawsuit can simply take a common sense approach in agreeing to consent orders to set aside the implied undertaking of confidentiality if it applies to otherwise relevant and clearly producible documents.

The "Loser Pays" System: Rule 14-1(9) and Principles of Costs Consequences

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Uncategorized. 100 Comments on The "Loser Pays" System: Rule 14-1(9) and Principles of Costs Consequences

Rule 14-1(9) of the BC Supreme Court Rules typically requires a losing party to pay costs to a successful party unless the Court “otherwise orders“.   Useful reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court discussing this Rule and the legal principles in play when a Court should deviate from the default “loser pays” result.
In last week’s case (LeClair v. Mibrella Inc.) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for damages.  The lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful and dismissed at trial largely because the court “did not accept the plaintiff’s evidence”.   The Plaintiff asked the Court to deviate from the usual costs result.  The Court found that the usual ‘loser pays‘ result should apply although the costs the Defendant was entitled to should be reduced by 50% to take into account some “improper” behaviour of the Defendant in the course of the lawsuit.  In discussing the principles behind Rule 14-1(9) Mr. Justice Voith provided the following useful summary:

[10] The following legal principles are relevant:

i)          Costs represent an important instrument by which courts can either promote or, conversely, sanction given conduct. Rule 14-1(9) provides one means of achieving this overarching object. The broad role served by cost awards is captured in the following statements:

a)         In Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Fisons Western Corporation (1988), 49 D.L.R. (4th) 205 at 226, 37 B.C.L.R. (2d) 2 (C.A.) at 25, leave to appeal ref’d, [1988] 1 S.C.R. ix, McLachlin J.A., as she then was for the courts, said:

… Parties, in calculating the risks of proceeding with a particular action or defence, should be able to forecast with some degree of precision what penalty they face should they be unsuccessful.

b)         In Karpodinis v. Kantas, 2006 BCCA 400 at para. 4, Hall J.A., for the court, said:

Cost considerations are meant to guide counsel and litigants in the choices and strategies they pursue in litigation. …

c)         In Skidmore v. Blackmore (1995), 122 D.L.R. (4th), 2 B.C.L.R. (3d) 201 (C.A.), Cumming J.A., speaking for a five member panel of the court, said:

[28] … the view that costs are awarded solely to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements incurred is now outdated. A review of Rule 37, which deals with offers to settle, reveals that in certain circumstances a party may be entitled to costs, or double costs, or to no costs at all. One of the purposes of the costs provisions in Rule 37 is to encourage conduct that reduces the duration and expense of litigation, and to discourage conduct that has the opposite effect. Thus, although it is true that costs are awarded to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements incurred, it is also true that costs are awarded to encourage or to deter certain types of conduct.

[Emphasis added.]

d)         Recently, in Catalyst Paper Corporation v. Companhia de Navegação Norsul, 2009 BCCA 16, Hall J.A., in the context of addressing Rule 57(9), said:

[15] In the recent case of Bedwell v. McGill, 2008 BCCA 526, a case dealing with a particular aspect of costs not relevant to this appeal, Newbury J.A., for the court, at para. 33, noted the purpose of former R. 37(24) as being “aimed at encouraging litigants to settle wherever possible, thus freeing up judicial resources for other cases.”

[16] It seems to me that the trend of recent authorities is to the effect that the costs rules should be utilized to have a winnowing function in the litigation process. The costs rules require litigants to make careful assessments of the strength or lack thereof of their cases at commencement and throughout the course of litigation. The rules should discourage the continuance of doubtful cases or defences. This of course imposes burdens on counsel to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of particular fact situations. Such considerations should, among other things, encourage reasonable settlements.

ii)         The onus is on the person who seeks to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event: Grassi v. WIC Radio Ltd., 2001 BCCA 376 at para. 24.

iii)        Though Rule 14-1(9) conveys a discretion to the court, that discretion is to be exercised in a “principled way”: Rossmo v. Vancouver Police Board, 2003 BCCA 677 at para. 59; or on “sound principle”: Brown v. Lowe, 2002 BCCA 7 at para. 147.

iv)        The exercise of discretion must be connected to the conduct (or misconduct) of a party in the litigation: Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2001 BCCA 386 at paras. 31-32; Smith v. City of New Westminster, 2004 BCSC 1304 at para. 9.

v)         The conduct in question can arise either at trial or at some earlier stage in the proceeding. For example, conduct that has been held to justify a denial of costs includes giving false evidence on discovery: Brown at para. 149-150. It also includes a failure to make timely and thorough production of relevant documents; Forsyth v. Pender Harbour Golf Club Society, 2006 BCSC 1108 at para. 72.

vi)        Costs are not to be used to sanction a party whose evidence was exaggerated or who gave evidence in error: Brown at para. 149. Where the appropriate dividing line lies was explained in each of Roberts v. Wilson (1997), 10 C.P.C. (4th) 188 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 25; Cardwell v. Perthen, 2007 BCSC 366 at para. 13; Noyes v. Stoffregen, [1995] B.C.J. No. 73 at paras. 79-80.

vii)       Where a court concludes that a party has intentionally or deliberately sought to mislead the court that party will normally be deprived of its costs: Medeiros v. Vuong, 2001 BCSC 326 at para. 12.

[11] I would add the following additional comments. First, Rule 14-1(9) is not intended to provide an unsuccessful party with an opportunity to parse through the litigation conduct of the opposing party searching for behaviour that might be criticized. I do not say that the discretion which is conferred in Rule 14-1(9) is limited to exceptional cases. The Rule is not, however, intended to address imperfect or less than optimal conduct. It is generally not intended to address questionable judgment. Instead it provides the court with an objective means of communicating its censure in relation to conduct that manifestly warrants rebuke.

[12] Second, the Rules of Court and the rules of evidence apply equally to both parties who are represented by counsel and to those who are self-represented. Self-represented litigants are not insulated from these requirements or the obligations they create. Nevertheless, depending on the nature of the concern expressed, some greater flexibility or tolerance may be accorded a self-represented litigant. For some issues, the need for honesty being the clearest example, no different standard can or does apply to a lay litigant. The requirement that parties be forthright is readily understood by all and is inflexible.

[13] In other cases, some increased measure of lenience will be appropriate and necessary. For example, a well-intentioned lay litigant’s imperfect understanding of relevance may cause that litigant to fail to produce certain documents, or to ask unnecessary questions of a witness or to object to what are proper questions. So long as that litigant acts properly once alerted to the deficiencies in his or her conduct, little is achieved in seeking to sanction the earlier conduct. There is no intentional conduct or abuse of the court’s process that warrants sanction.

Can the BC Supreme Court Order a Plaintiff to Travel Out of Province for an Independent Medical Exam?

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 71 Comments on Can the BC Supreme Court Order a Plaintiff to Travel Out of Province for an Independent Medical Exam?


Further to my post discussing court ordered medical exams and travel, I’ve recently had the opportunity to review whether the current Supreme Court Rules place limits on Court ordered travel for independent medical examinations.  The line, it seems, is drawn at out of Province “medical practitioners“.
While I’m not aware of any cases addressing this issue under the current rules, the issue was addressed by the BC Court of Appeal under the former Rule 30(1) which reads almost identically to the current Rule 7-6(1).
In the leading case under the former rules (Hewitt v. Buell) the BC Court of Appeal held that orders for medical examinations are to be limited to BC physicians because “the phrase (medical practitioner)…as it appears in Rule 30(1) can have no meaning other than one entitled to practice in British Columbia.  This is what the chambers judge concluded and in my view he was right. ”
The BC Court of Appeal went on to hold that applications for out of Province examinations with “other qualified persons” (ie- experts other than medical practitioners), can be ordered in rare circumstances.
I’ve now had the opportunity to cross reference this judgement with the new Rules of Court.  It appears that the out of Province restriction for exams with “medical practitioners” remains in place.  The reason being is that Rule 7-6(1) reads almost identically to the former Rule 30(1).  Additionally, the current Rules of Court do not define “medical practitioner” requiring the Court to turn to Rule 1-1(2) which states that “Unless a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Supreme Court Act Apply to these Supreme Court Civil Rules“.
“Medical Practitioner” is defined at section 29 of the BC Interpretation Act as “a registrant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia entitled under the Health Professions Act to practice medicine and to use the title ‘medical practitioner’.”
So, if an out of Province medical exam is contested, a good place to start in opposing a defence application is to review whether the out of Province physician is a registrant of the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons.

BC Court of Appeal Finds There is only a "Single Standard" Under the Occupier's Liability Act

Written by admin on . Posted in Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal discussing the standard of care for Occupier’s Liability lawsuits in BC.
In today’s case (Charlie v. Canada Safeway Limited) the Plaintiff slipped and fell near a display of flowers while shopping at Safeway in Duncan, BC.  The flowers were kept in water and when customers picked up the flowers for purchase they sometimes “could drip (water) on the floor”.  She was injured and sued for damages.
During her fall the Plaintiff knocked over one of the buckets of flowers spilling a considerable amount of water on the floor.  The Plaintiff could not offer direct evidence that dripped water made her fall but inferred that this was the cause of her fall.  At trial the Court refused to make this inference and dismissed the lawsuit.  The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding there was no error in law in the Court refusing to draw the same inference the Plaintiff made.
The Plaintiff went further and argued that “there are two types of occupiers’ liability cases:  “due diligence cases” and “unsafe conditions cases”. She accepts that in “due diligence” cases, a system such as the one in place in the case before us would satisfy the requirements of the Act. She says, however, that where the occupier has created an “unsafe condition”, there is a greater duty to take care to protect visitors to the premises from risk.”
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and in doing so made it clear that there is only one standard of care to be applied in BC Occupier’s Liability lawsuits.  The Court provided the following reasons:
[19] I do not agree with the plaintiff’s contention that different standards of care apply to different types of hazards on an occupier’s premises. The Occupiers Liability Act establishes a single standard of care, “a duty to take that care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a person … will be reasonably safe in using the premises.”  While the extent of a danger posed by any particular hazard will obviously be an important factor in assessing the reasonableness of an occupier’s response to it, I do not think that it is helpful to define different types of hazards that entail different standards of care.

Can Lawyers Swear Affidavits In Support of Their Clients Interlocutory Applications?

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 22, Uncategorized. 73 Comments on Can Lawyers Swear Affidavits In Support of Their Clients Interlocutory Applications?


In British Columbia the short answer is yes.  Useful reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this topic at length.
In last week’s case (The Los Angeles Salad Company Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency) the Plaintiff’s lawyer filed an affidavit in support of two applications of the Plaintiff.  The Defendant objected to this arguing that it was an improper practice and breached the principles set out in the Canadian Bar Association’s Code of Professional Conduct and the BC Professional Conduct Handbook.  Mr. Justice Harris disagreed and provided the following helpful reasons:

[15] No authority was cited to me in that establishes a binding general rule that solicitors cannot not swear affidavits in interlocutory proceedings in which they or their firm are counsel. To the contrary, even the professional guidelines support such a practice within limits. The case law also indicates that counsel is legally competent to swear an affidavit, even in relation to matters in dispute, although that practice is to be discouraged: see, National Financial Services Corporation v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. (1998), 52 B.C.L.R. 302 (S.C.) at para. 7.

[16] The Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct qualifies its statement of principle about lawyers swearing affidavits by referring to local rules or practice authorizing lawyers to do so. In British Columbia it is the practice for counsel to swear affidavits, on occasion, particularly in respect to uncontroverted matters or matters relevant to the interlocutory issue before court. The practice obviously carries risks, not least that a solicitor may be cross-examined on the affidavit, waive privilege or may succeed inadvertently in putting his or her credibility in issue. There are many good reasons for counsel to take great care in swearing affidavits in cases in which they are counsel.

[17] Nonetheless, there are occasions when the use of counsel affidavits is justified as a matter of practice. Sometimes, at least in respect of interlocutory matters, the evidence of counsel may be the best evidence available. It may often be economical and timely to have counsel swear an affidavit in support of interlocutory application. Introducing a legal rule that upset this practice would defeat the object of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits including conducting the proceeding in ways proportionate to the amount involved in the proceeding, the importance of the issues in dispute and the complexity of the proceeding.

[18] Equally, the fact that the affidavit contains some evidence on information and belief provided to the affiant by Mr. Sanderson who then commissioned the affidavit and argued the matter in court does not in itself compel the conclusion that the affidavit is inadmissible. I was not taken to any particular examples of information provided by Mr. Sanderson that gave rise to a concern that counsel were merely attempting to circumvent the professional guideline that counsel should not speak to their own affidavits, particularly if the subject matter is contentious.

[19] In my view, it would be a mistake to recognize or create a special rule requiring the rejection of affidavits sworn by counsel if those affidavits contain both admissible and inadmissible evidence. Insofar as admissibility is concerned, solicitors’ affidavits are governed by the same rules as any other affidavit. Inadmissible content may be ignored or formally struck, but the affidavit as a whole need not be rejected.

New Rules Caselaw Update: More on Contested Applications at TMC's and CPC's

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 5, Uncategorized. 63 Comments on New Rules Caselaw Update: More on Contested Applications at TMC's and CPC's


Late last year reasons for judgment were released by the BC Supreme Court finding that Trial Management Conferences and Case Planning Conferences “are not generally the forum to determine contested applications.” . Reasons for judgement were released this week by Mr. Justice Smith taking a less restrictive view of this issue.
In today’s case (Jurczak v. Mauro) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  As trial neared the Plaintiff brought an application for an adjournment and this was granted in order to give the Plaintiff time to gather appropriate medico-legal evidence.  The Court was specifically asked whether it was permissible for contested applications to be heard at TMC’s.  Mr. Justice Smith held that such practice was permitted under the Rules.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[1] At a Trial Management Conference (TMC) on March 31, 2011, I made an order adjourning the trial in this matter, which had been set for May, 2, 2010.  I indicated that I would provide written reasons because the application raised a procedural question about the circumstances under which a judge at a TMC may hear and rule upon a contested adjournment application.

[2] The TMC was created by the new Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 that came into effect on July 1, 2010.  Rule 12-2 (9) sets out a broad range of orders that can be made by the presiding judge at a TMC “whether or not on the application of a party.”  These include, at subparagraph (l), an order adjourning the trial.  However, Rule 12-2 (11) prohibits a TMC judge from hearing an application for which affidavit evidence is required…

[7] I do not understand Vernon to be suggesting that a judge at a TMC can never order an adjournment if one party objects.  No such restriction appears in Rule 12-2.  The Rule prohibits hearing applications that require affidavit evidence.  It is for the judge to decide whether a particular application requires affidavit evidence and whether any affidavits that have been tendered are relevant.

[8] The orders permitted by Rule 12-2 (9) are, broadly speaking, procedural in that they deal with the conduct of the trial, including how certain evidence is to be presented, the length of the trial and, in subparagraph (q), “any other matter that may assist in making the trial more efficient.”

[9] Rule 12-2 (3) requires the parties to file trial briefs in Form 41 identifying the issues in dispute (which, by that stage, may not be all of the issues raised in the pleadings), listing the witnesses, including experts, to be called and estimating the time necessary for the evidence of each witness.  The trial brief is an unsworn statement of counsel or the self-represented party.  The Rule clearly contemplates that the judge will make orders based on the information contained in the trial briefs, as supplemented by what is said at the TMC.  That is the only basis on which the orders permitted by the Rule could be made.

[10] In some cases where an adjournment, or any other order is sought, a judge may decide that supporting information is not adequate.  That was the situation in Vernon, where Goepel J. was presented with an affidavit of the plaintiff setting out the prejudice that would flow from an adjournment.  That evidence had to be weighed against any evidence of prejudice to the defendant if the adjournment was not granted.  Once the plaintiff’s affidavit was found to be relevant, evidence in proper form was required from the defendant and counsel’s statements, standing alone, were not acceptable.

[11] However, there are situations where the need for an adjournment can be clearly assessed on the basis of information provided at the TMC and affidavit evidence would be of no assistance.  For example, a judge may be able to determine simply from the trial briefs that the trial cannot possibly be completed in anything close to the estimated time, or that the number of pre-trial matters still to be dealt with shows that the case is not ready for trial.  If the judge could not order an adjournment in those circumstances, a large part of Rule 12-2’s purpose would be defeated….

[18] In summary, the fact that the adjournment application was contested would not, in itself, have prevented me from hearing and deciding it at the TMC.  In the circumstances, affidavit evidence was not necessary. I had jurisdiction to consider the adjournment application on the basis of information in the trial briefs and the statements of counsel at the TMC and I would have made the same decision had the matter proceeded on that basis.