Skip to main content

Mike de Jong Addresses Wrongful Death Law Reform in BC

Written by admin on . Posted in Tort Reform, Uncategorized. 60 Comments on Mike de Jong Addresses Wrongful Death Law Reform in BC

As I’ve previously discussed, if a person dies through the carelessness of others in British Columbia claims for damages by surviving family members must be brought under the BC Family Compensation Act. This outdated law has been the subject of much criticism due to its restrictions for survivors claims. You can find an in-depth analysis on this topic here.
Recently BC Liberal leadership candidate Mike de Jong gave the following invitation:

I took this opportunity to ask Mike the following two questions:

Mike was kind enough to answer my first question on this recent video he uploaded to YouTube:

My question is addressed 1:13 into the clip.  For the sake of convenience here is Mike’s answer transcribed:
“That’s a good question because I think our laws in BC have fallen a little out of step with what’s happened in other jurisdictions and my belief is that if an accident occurs and someone loses a loved one they should be entitled to the same type of compensation as is available to the families elsewhere in Canada and that is not presently the case in British Columbia and I think it’s time we updated our laws in that respect.  It’s really about fairness for BC families.  Thanks for the question”
Maybe Mike will tackle my second question on his next episode of Open Mike Mailbag.  Given Mike’s views on wrongful death laws I’m optimistic he is not a tort ‘reformer‘  (for those unfamiliar with the phrase, tort reform generally refers to limiting the rights of those injured through the carelessness of others to the beneift of insurance company profits)  but a clear stance is always appreciated.  Thanks Mike.

ICBC Injury Settlements – Selling Your Right To Sue

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 2 Comments on ICBC Injury Settlements – Selling Your Right To Sue

The best way to think of an ICBC tort settlement is not as compensation but as a sale.  In a settlement ICBC will pay you money but they are actually buying something from you in the process.  The asset for sale is your right to sue the person that injured you.
Prior signing the “full and final release” you need to know the fair value of what you are selling.  You should establish what your potential or actual lawsuit may be worth and the risks and rewards of trial so you can have an informed negotiation with ICBC.  Earlier this year I discussed some of the factors that go into valuing a tort claim in the below video:

I further discussed the factors Courts consider in valuing claims for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) in this previous podcast.
Don’t take the settlement process lightly.  Appreciate that settlement negotiations involve a business deal.  Value your claim appropriately and come to the negotiating table well informed.

Removing a Case from Rule 15 – Trial Length

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 15, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on Removing a Case from Rule 15 – Trial Length


Rule 15 is the new BC Fast Track Litigation Rule and it is mandatory for cases for damages seeking less than $100,000 and for cases that “can be completed within 3 days“.   Rule 15-1(6) permits a court to remove a case from Fast Track Litigation.  The first case I’m aware of dealing with such an application was released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In today’s case (Jones v. Stratford Hall) the Plaintiff sued using the mandatory fast track rule.  The Defendant applied to remove the case arguing that the trial would take more than 3 days.  Master Bishop refused to remove the case from the Fast Track finding that there was a “rational possibility” the case could be concluded in 3 days.  The Court provided the following short but helpful reasons:
[3] With respect to the first application, that is a little bit more difficult of a question to resolve, but in my view, given the test set out by Master Bolton that the defendant must show quite clearly that the matter cannot be completed in two days ?? three days, sorry, I believe the defendant fails on that basis.  I believe there is a rational possibility that counsel, particularly given the case management conference that is happening tomorrow, can complete matters within the three days, and therefore that application is dismissed.
Master Bishop refers to a case where Master Bolton appears to have addressed this issue previously (and perhaps in more detail) although the reasons for judgement do not indicate which authority the Court is relying on.   Until more precedents are developed interpreting Rule 15, authorities addressing the former Rule 68 may be of some assistance and guidance.  You can access my archived posts addressing the former Rule 68 here.

Caselaw Update: Independent Medical Exams and Responding Reports

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 48 Comments on Caselaw Update: Independent Medical Exams and Responding Reports


As previously discussed, Rule 11-6(3) of the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules requires expert reports to be served 84 days prior to trial.  Rule 11-6(4) requires “responding” reports to be served at least 42 days prior to trial.  The issue of whether a Defendant is able to force a plaintiff to attend an “independent medical exam” for the purpose of obtaining a responding report is currently being worked out by the BC Supreme Court.
Two further cases have been brought to my attention addressing this topic and with these the bulk of the judicial authorities to date demonstrate that it may be very difficult for a Defendant to force a late ‘independent‘ examination to obtain a responding report.
Both of the recent cases (Crane v. Lee and Boudreau v. Logan) involve ICBC injury claims.  In both the Plaintiff served expert reports discussing the extent of their accident related injuries.  The Defendants applied to compel the Plaintiff to attend an independent exam inside the 84 day deadline in order to obtain responding reports.  Master Caldwell presided over both applications and dismissed them both.  In doing so the Court relied on Mr. Justice Savage’s reasoning in Wright v. Brauer and ruled that that precedent was “on all fours” with the present applications.  Master Caldwell repeated the following reasons from Mr. Justice Savage:

[18]         However, at this point in time in the action, the defendants are limited to what Mr. Justice Williamson referred to in Kelly, supra, as “truly responsive rebuttal evidence”.  The application must be considered in that light; the question on this application is not one of notice, but whether the Examination should be ordered to enable the defendant to file responsive evidence.  The authorizing Rule, 7-6(1) uses the term “may”.

[19]         In Kroll v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (1995), 5 B.C.L.R. (3d) 7, Sanders J., as she then was, noted that “true response evidence, does not permit fresh opinion evidence to masquerade as answer to the other side’s reports”.

[20]         In C.N. Railway v. H.M.T.Q. in Right of Canada, 2002 BCSC 1669, Henderson J. considered the admissability of “reply reports” holding that only the portions of the reports that provided a critical analysis of the methodology of the opposing expert were admissible as responsive evidence.  The portions of the reports describing the authors’ own opinions on the matters in issue were not admitted.

[21]         In this case, the defendants do not explain why an examination is required in these circumstances, other than a statement by a legal assistant that counsel says such is “necessary to properly defend this action and to respond to the reports of Dr. Weckworth and Dr. O’Connor”.  Master McCallum in White v. Gait, 2003 BCSC 2023 declined to order an examination where it had not been shown why such was required to produce a responsive report.

These cases, in total, seem to stand for the proposition that a Defendant needs to have sworn evidence from the proposed medical examiner explaining why physical examination is required in order to provide a responding report (which is what happened in Luedecke v. Hillman).  Absent this, late independent medical exam applications are being dismissed by the BC Supreme Court.

As of today’s date the Crane and Boudreau decisions are unpublished.  As always I’m happy to provide a copy of these cases to anyone who could benefit from them.  You can request a copy by filling out the form on this link.

Damages for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries "Of No Clinical Significance" Assessed at $75,000

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


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing damages for chronic pain as a result of soft tissue injuries.
In this week’s case (Jackson v. Mongrain) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision.  The vehicle he was occupying was rear-ended by the Defendant.  Fault for the crash was admitted.  The Plaintiff was injured in this crash and in support of his case called evidence as to his long-standing symptoms of chronic pain.  The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had no on-going injuries and in support of this argument pointed to the opinion of Dr. Reebye, a physiatrist hired by the Defence to conduct an ‘independent medical exam‘ who stated that the Plaintiff’s ongoing tenderness was of ‘no-clinical significance’.
Mr. Justice Stewart rejected the defence argument and went on to assess the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $75,000.  In doing so the Court made the following comments:

[24]        Because the point seemed obvious to me, at the end of the case I asked counsel for the defendant whether he conceded that to this day the plaintiff suffers from chronic pain which would not be his lot but for the negligence of the defendant on April 8, 2006.

[25]        The answer was no.

[26]        Why not?  As to that counsel for the defendant grounded his submission on the fact that Dr. Reebye, an expert in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant on June 22, 2010, told me that certain areas of tenderness in the plaintiff’s back were of “no clinical significance”.

[27]        The doctor told me that “not of clinical significance” meant that in his opinion what the patient complained of was “not a severe pain or it is localized pain”. Nobody, including me, asked the doctor to tell us anything more about what he meant by “of no clinical significance”. The doctor did make it clear elsewhere in his evidence that he did not doubt that the plaintiff was making truthful statements to him as he, the doctor, went about his examination. I must say that absent testimony to the contrary I assumed then and assume now that all the doctor was saying in using the phrase of “no clinical significance” was that the fact the area in question was tender resulted in a finding of just that, tenderness, and no more.

[28]        To say that that isolated statement by Dr. Reebye stands in the way of the conclusion noted above as to the overwhelming effect of the whole of the evidence makes no sense to me.

[29]        In the result, having recognized the caution that must be taken before finding that a plaintiff is burdened with pain and suffering as the result of soft tissue damage long after the flesh must have healed, I find as a fact that the plaintiff is burdened with chronic pain in the neck and back that would not be his lot but for the negligence of the defendant on April 8, 2006. That finding is based on the cumulative effect of my finding the plaintiff to be a witness upon whom I am prepared to rely, the thrust of the evidence of Dr. Mamacos (Exhibit 2 Tab 7) and Dr. Hamm (Exhibit 2 Tab 2 Page 13) and the absence of a pointed, precise statement by Dr. Reebye to the effect that he is of the opinion that the plaintiff does not suffer from chronic pain and discomfort which chronic pain and discomfort has its head and source in the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident of April 8, 2006…

[53] The plaintiff has endured pain and suffering thus far for call it 57 months. His pain is chronic and I find in all likelihood will be with him to the grave. Dr. Mamacos added that once an individual’s back is injured the chances of what he called “back issues” in the future increase. The plaintiff swims and walks regularly. He exercises. He has had physiotherapy, taken over-the-counter drugs and had massage treatments. Because of the nature of the work the plaintiff did before the motor vehicle accident the fact that the level of his pain and discomfort – looked at in isolation – is not great did not mean he did not suffer a loss or diminishment of the capacity to earn income (see supra). But the fact remains that I would describe his pain and suffering as not intense but more of the nagging variety, i.e., always with him but at a very reduced level and causing real and substantial discomfort only when at work or outside of work he does something which is actually too much for him or when at the end of a workday the cumulative effect of his day’s activities and the state of his neck and back sets in. I find that very bad “flare-ups” occur three or four times a year. He uses over-the-counter drugs (amongst other non-prescription drugs) to assist him, as necessary. I accept that his chronic pain and suffering interferes to an extent with his activities when he is not at work. He limits himself to walking and swimming whereas before the motor vehicle accident he played basketball, rode a mountain bike, played racquetball and went camping and hiking. The evidence of the plaintiff, his mother and of the plaintiff’s friend Gordon Papp satisfies me that because of his problems with his neck and back, the plaintiff does less around the house that he and Gordon Papp co-own than would otherwise be the case. (I note here that I have ignored the evidence of the plaintiff’s friend Chris Kokkonis. The plaintiff’s own evidence convinces me that Chris Kokkonis is a witness who thought exaggerating the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s pain and discomfort would assist the plaintiff. It did not.)  I have considered the case law placed before me by counsel. Having considered the whole of it I award the plaintiff $75,000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary loss.

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Subcapital Hip Fracture Requiring Replacement

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Hip Injury Cases, Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, awarding damages for injuries sustained in a trip and fall incident.
In last week’s case (Etson v. Loblaw Companies Limited) the 76 year old plaintiff tripped and fell over a wooden pallet in an aisle while shopping at the Real Canadian Superstore.  The Court found that both the Plaintiff and Defendant were equally at fault for the incident.
The Plaintiff sustained a subcapital fracture to her right hip.  Initially this was treated with internal fixation although the Plaintiff’s pain continued.  She eventually required a total hip replacement following which she recovered reasonably well.  Madam Justice Fisher valued the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 and in arriving at this figure the Court provided the following reasons:

[61]        Ms. Etson was quite reserved in her descriptions of the pain she experienced as a result of her injuries but there is no question that she suffered a tremendous amount of pain.  The initial injury was obviously very painful and it took Ms. Etson about four months to begin to resume her mobility sufficiently to be able to drive and do things for herself.  She suffered a debilitating set-back in August 2009 when the hardware failed and the femoral head in her hip collapsed.  Her mobility deteriorated and she was again unable to do things for herself.  She suffered tremendous and increasing physical pain for about eight months.  She underwent two additional surgeries.  The first, in January 2010, did not alleviate her pain or improve her mobility.  She did not experience any relief from the pain until April 2010 when she had the total hip replacement surgery.

[62]        Ms. Etson had been a very independent and active woman.  She was involved in painting and the arts and was very active in a local painting club and other community events.  After the accident, she was unable to continue any of this involvement and she had considerable difficulty maintaining her independence.  She had to rely on her sister and Ms. Erikson to help her with meals and other things.  She developed ways to get around her house and she managed as best as she could.  However, it is apparent that the severe limitations on her ability to participate in activities outside her home for close to a year and a half left her feeling very isolated.  Moreover, the accident occurred at a very difficult time in Ms. Etson’s life, when her daughter was in the later stages of a terminal illness.  While she said little about this, it was clear to me that her injuries made it practically impossible for her to visit her daughter before her death in April 2009.  Since the hip replacement surgery in April 2010, Ms. Etson’s condition has improved significantly but she has not yet found the spirit to return to her pre-accident activities and she is still not socially active.  I am satisfied that the injury is a factor here, but I also find that some of this lack of spirit is attributed to other factors, such as the death of her daughter.

[63]        Clearly, Ms. Etson’s injuries have had a profound effect of her life.  She has recovered reasonably well since April 2010 but she still has residual problems.  She is limited in how far she can walk, she still uses a cane when walking for more than two or three blocks and she has a bit of a limp. She is able to live independently now but she is still not able to do heavier physical activities such as gardening or snow removal. I do not accept Dr. Moreau’s comment that “there would have been some residual symptoms during her recovery from the hip replacement of about 3 months”.  This statement is not consistent with his own observations of her condition on September 27, 2010, and is not consistent with Ms. Etson’s evidence, which I do accept.  Her residual symptoms have lasted longer than that and while her prognosis is not entirely clear, it is likely that she will be able to resume most, if not all, of her pre-accident activities by the spring.

[64]        I do accept Dr. Moreau’s opinion that Ms. Etson will not require any further treatment or specific rehabilitation and that it is very unlikely that she will have any further problems or disabilities because of the hip injury…

[70] In this case, the injuries had a profound effect on Ms. Etson’s life.  Her active and independent life style, which was important to her, was seriously compromised for over a year and a half.  During that time she experienced significant pain and had to undergo three surgeries.  She is now able to resume most of her former activities but she still has some residual effects.  Given my findings, I assess non-pecuniary damages at $90,000.

2010 Clawbies Finalist, a Thank You and a 2011 Polar Bear Swim

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


Last year this blog was fortunate enough to be awarded a “Clawbie” (Canadian Law Blog Award) for best practitioner’s blog.  This year this blog made it as a finalist in this increasingly competitive category.  I’d like to thank all those that visit this blog regularly and all those who nominated this blog for 2010.
I’d also like to, once again, point to the others that I nominated for consideration this year and to thank Steve Matthews, Jordan Furlong and the others at Stem Legal for considering my blog.  Lastly, congratulations to all of this years winners, finalists, and nominees.
So how does one celebrate a feat such as this?  As per my New Years Day tradition by jumping in a Canadian Lake with my son.  (a rarity for Victoria, Elk Lake had a thin layer of ice over it for this year’s swim)

Happy New Year everyone!

More on Valuing Damages for Modest Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.


As previously discussed damages for non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) are best thought of in ranges.  The same injury can be valued differently by individual trial judges and for this reason its important to get a sense of the low end and high end of appropriate compensation for your injury when considering settlement.  The best way to do this is to review as many cases as possible dealing with similar injuries.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing non-pecuniary damages for a modest soft tissue injury of nine months duration.
In today’s case (Thomson v. Hunt) the Plaintiff was involved in a December 2007 collision in Coquitlam, BC.  Fault was denied by the Defendant although the trial judge found him entirely responsible for the crash.  The Plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries affecting his left shoulder, arm and neck.  These were acute for three months and disabled the plaintiff from work during this time.  From there the injuries continued to improve until they were “essentially symptom free” some 10 months following the crash.   Mr. Justice Schultes valued the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $20,000 and in doing so provided the following reasons:

[60]        Bearing in mind that Mr. Thomson’s continuing symptoms were not sufficiently serious to require further medical attention, I find that the link Dr. Fyfe makes between his work duties and the presence of symptoms in the areas described is plausible, particularly in light of what she identified as the difficulties Mr. Thomson endured when undertaking strenuous duties during the earlier stages of his recovery. I find that although Mr. Thomson’s symptoms diminished to such an extent as to no longer require him to seek ongoing medical treatment and engage in physiotherapy, those symptoms persisted in one form or another until the end of August 2008.

[61]        Mr. Thomson himself does not suggest that his symptoms were as severe once he returned to work. In his affidavit sworn February 26, 2010, at para. 49 he deposed that:

Most of my injuries had improved quite a bit before I returned to work on March 10, 2008. I remember that the pain in the left shoulder, left arm and between the shoulder blades were still lingering when I returned to work. I had periodic neck pain which was aggravated by work, as my job involved a lot of looking up.

[62]        I think this candid description weighs substantially in favour of Mr. Thomson’s credibility and distinguishes him from those plaintiffs who maintain that their physiological problems continue undiminished for very lengthy periods, well past what objective medical or other evidence can possibly support.

[63]        In all the circumstances, I think that the duration of Mr. Thomson’s most serious symptoms and the limited extent to which they interfered with his pre-collision lifestyle calls for a lower award than those awarded in the cases he relies on. However I have no concerns on the evidence that Mr. Thomson may have exaggerated his symptoms, so I think that a substantially higher award than the nominal ones in the cases Mr. Hunt relies on is warranted.

[64]        I, accordingly, award Mr. Thomson $20,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

If you’re looking for other recent soft tissue injury damages assessments by BC Courts feel free to access my archived posts on this topic (fairly comprehensive from 2008-present).  Another great resource is Canlii, a free Canadian legal case-law database.

Transferring To Small Claims Court and the New Supreme Court Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 127 Comments on Transferring To Small Claims Court and the New Supreme Court Rules


Despite the many changes in the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules, one area that has not appeared to change relates to transferring a lawsuit from the BC Supreme Court to the BC Provincial Court (Small Claims Court).  The reason for this is that the authority to make such a transfer is not in the Supreme Court Rules, but rather in Supreme Court Act which was not overhauled in the recent transition.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, demonstrating that authorities developed prior to the Rules overhaul remain good law.
In today’s case (Madill) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant following a commercial transaction.  The lawsuit, if successful, would have resulted in damages below $25,000 and could have been brought in Small Claims Court.
The Defendant set down a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim and seeking costs.  Prior to this motion proceeding the Plaintiff brought her own motion to move the claim to Provincial Court.  Master Bouck granted the Plaintiff’s motion and awarded each party tariff costs for various steps taken while the claim was in the Supreme Court.  Prior to arriving at her decision Master Bouck set out the following test for transfer applications under section 15 of the Supreme Court Act.

[10]        Applications to transfer proceedings from the Supreme Court to the Provincial Court are somewhat commonplace. The test to be met is set out in Squamish Ford Sales Ltd. v. Doll, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1562 at paras. 16 and 17:

16 Reference has been made to the decision of Master Chamberlist in Manley v. Burns Lake Community Development Assn. [1996] B.C.J. No. 2236. Smithers Registry No. 8953, where the learned master considers some factors which may be applicable on such applications:

[10]      In Hiebert v. Brown, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2015, in dealing with a similar application, I stated that the court in exercising its powers under s. 13.1, must determine whether in all the circumstances it would be just and convenient to order a transfer to Provincial Court after balancing the prejudices to the respective parties.

[11]      Examples of considerations the court has taken into account in balancing these prejudices include, but are not limited to, the following considerations:

(a)        lateness in making the application for transfer;

(b)        availability of Supreme Court pre-trial procedures;

(c)        number of witnesses and the complexity of the case; and

(d)        potential quantum of damages.

17 The plaintiff refers to the decision of Master Horn in Martin v. Tom [1995] B.C.J. No 2342, I turn for assistance to the decision of Master Powers in Long v. Jackson (1994) 88 B.C.L.R. (2d) 46. In that judgment he set forth a number of matters which required consideration in relation to an application to transfer to the Provincial Court. I will not repeat all those considerations. The considerations which most affect me are these:

1)         There will likely be no delay in this matter coming for trial if the action is transferred to the Provincial Court.

2)         While this is a proper case for the consideration of a jury, being an issue of quantum of damages only, a jury trial would be far more expensive and lengthy.

3)         Discoveries have been completed and so neither party will be prejudiced by the paucity of discovery procedures in the Provincial Court.

4)         The application is brought well before the trial date.

[11]        In this case, the application is brought early in the proceeding; neither party wishes to utilize the Supreme Court pre-trial processes; and there is no evidence of any delay in having the matter adjudicated in Provincial Court.

"Demystifying" Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Head Injury Cases, ICBC Privacy Issues, ICBC Wage Loss, Uncategorized.


(Update: the Defendant’s Appeal of the below judgement was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal on February 7, 2012)
Many of you may be aware of ICBC’s current “demystifying” campaign.   There are many misunderstood topics related to injury lawsuits and one of the most prominent is that of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI).  Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, demystifying some of the arguments that are commonly raised in opposition to these claims.
In today’s case (Madill v. Sithivong) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 BC motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck on the passenger side by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The issue of fault was admitted by the Defendant with the trial largely focussing on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.
The collision was not significant, from a vehicle damage perspective, causing little over $1,700 in damage to the Plaintiff vehicle.   Despite this the Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in the crash.  ICBC argued that the injuries were not serious in part because the vehicle damage was modest, the Plaintiff had a ‘normal‘ Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15/15 noted on the ambulance crew report and that the hospital records relating to the treatment of the Plaintiff noted that he suffered from “No LOC (loss of consciousness)” and “zero amnesia“.
The Plaintiff called evidence from Dr. Hunt, a well respected neurosurgeon, who gave evidence that the above facts were not determinative of whether the Plaintiff suffered from serious consequences related to MTBI.  Madam Justice Morrison was persuaded by Dr. Hunts’ evidence and accepted that the Plaintiff suffered from long term consequences as a result of an acquired brain injury.  In rejecting the defence arguments Madam Justice Morrison provided the following ‘demystifying‘ reasons:

[112]     Dr. Hunt said he tries to concentrate on the individual.  He finds it helpful to see the notes of the family doctor, which deal with initial complaints, as do the notes of the ER doctor and responders.  But he notes that those doctors are very busy, and things get overlooked.  The same is true with an ambulance crew.  Dr. Hunt stated there may be no loss of consciousness, but there may be a loss of awareness.  An ambulance crew may give a 15 score for the Glasgow scale, indicating normal, but that could be misleading.  He also noted that someone may be described as being in good health pre-accident, but that would not mean he would not have issues.

[113]     Dr. Hunt disagreed that the best evidence of whether the plaintiff was an amnesiac, were notes at the hospital of “no LOC” and “zero amnesia”.  It was the evidence of Dr. Hunt that no matter how many times you see those terms, that a patient is alert and wide awake, that sometimes in looking at crew reports, the necessary information is not there.  A person does not need to strike his head for a concussion to have occurred.  It need only have been a shaking.

[114]     It is important to explain what a mild traumatic brain injury is, he stressed; Dr. Hunt referred to the many concussions in sports.  He said it is important to look at what happened following the accident, what symptoms have occurred and are continuing to occur.  Patients often deny a loss of consciousness or a loss of awareness, and it may be so fleeting that they may well be unaware.  But if the head has been shaken or jarred enough, this will equal a concussion, which is the same as a mild traumatic brain injury.  There may be no indication of bruises on the head, but it still could be a concussion.  Dr. Hunt noted that something prevented the plaintiff from exiting the vehicle, so the Jaws of Life was used.

[115]     Dr. Hunt noted that Dr. Tessler agreed that the plaintiff had a cerebral concussion in his initial report, but it was the opinion of Dr. Hunt that Dr. Tessler was not up to date on mild traumatic brain injuries.

[116]     In his evidence, Dr. Hunt listed some of the symptoms that are compatible with a concussion having occurred:  headaches, altered vision, balance difficulties, general fatigue, anxiety, memory disturbance, inability to manage stress.  “A concussion is a mild traumatic brain injury.  We no longer grade concussions.”

[117]     I found Dr. Hunt to be an excellent witness.  He was cautious, detailed, thoughtful, low key, thorough and utterly professional.  In cross-examination, he gave a minor clinic on mild traumatic brain injuries.  He was subjected to a rigorous, lengthy and skilful cross-examination, which only served to expand upon and magnify his report and opinions.

[118]     He commented on the history of Mr. Madill prior to the accident, pointing to a number of things that may have caused excessive jarring or shaking of the head, even if there had been no symptoms of concussion.  He believes that the first responders’ observations are not always accurate as to what actually happened.  He said he himself may not have identified problems of concussion at the scene of the accident.  Ninety percent of people with concussions have headaches.  They have difficulty describing the headaches, and they are not the same as migraine or tension headaches.

[119]     Dr. Hunt was further critical of Dr. Tessler in opining that Dr. Tessler had diluted his opinion, and that he had concerns with the report of Dr. Tessler.  He felt that Dr. Tessler was still “in the dark ages” with regard to mild traumatic brain injuries, that he has not had the advantages that Dr. Hunt has had in working with sports brain injuries.  “Concussion is cumulative.”

[120]     I found the report and the evidence of Dr. Hunt persuasive.  He came across as an advocate of a better understanding of concussions or mild traumatic brain injuries, not as an advocate on behalf of the plaintiff.

In addition to the above, two other topics were of interest in todays’ case.  Evidence was presented by ICBC though private investigtors they hired who conducted video surveillance of the Plaintiff.  The Court found that this evidence was of little value but prior to doing so Madam Justice Morrison made the following critical observations:

[74] Much of the videotaping occurred while both the plaintiff and the private investigator were moving on streets and highways, driving at the speed of other traffic.  The investigators testified they drove with one hand on the wheel and the other hand operating the video camera, up at the side of their head, to allow them to view through the camera what they were taping.  That continues to be their practice today, according to at least one of the investigators, which was interesting, considering from whom they receive their instructions, a corporation dedicated to road safety.

Lastly, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity.  In short the Plaintiff was self employed with his spouse.  Despite his injuries he was able to continue working but his spouse took on greater responsibility following the collision.  The Court recognized that the Plaintiff suffered from a diminisehd earning capacity and awarded $650,000 for this loss.  Paragraphgs 193-210 of the judgement contain the Court’s discussion of this topic.