Skip to main content

More on Court Costs and "Sufficient Reason" For Suing in the BC Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Settlement Law, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on More on Court Costs and "Sufficient Reason" For Suing in the BC Supreme Court

Further to my previous posts on this topic, if a Plaintiff successfully sues in the BC Supreme Court but receives damages below $25,000 they may be deprived of their court ‘costs’ unless they had ‘sufficient reason’ for choosing the Supreme Court over small claims court.
Two judgements were released this week by the BC Supreme Court discussing this area of law.  In this weeks cases (Spencer v. Popham and Spencer v. Horton) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 separate  BC car crashes.  She started separate lawsuits in the BC Supreme Court but settled her cases before they went to trial.  Both claims settled form amounts below $25,000 (the current financial limit of BC’s small claims court).  The Plaintiff and ICBC could not agree on the issue of costs.
ICBC argued that since both cases were in the small claims courts jurisdiction the Plaintiff did not have sufficient reason for suing in the Supreme Court.  Mr. Justice Punnett disagreed and awarded the Plaintiff costs in both claims.  In doing so he provided the following useful and through summary of this area of the law:

[8] Rule 57(10) of the Rules of Court states:

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

[9] This rule encourages persons to bring actions in Small Claims Court when a claim falls within that court’s monetary jurisdiction. It is an example of “proportionality”; the judicial process should match the amount in dispute. However, the court must also respect a party’s “legitimate choice” of forum: Reimann v. Aziz, 2007 BCCA 448, 286 D.L.R. (4th) 330 at para. 35.

[10] The burden is on claimants to evaluate their claims prior to commencement and to justify their decision if they recover less than the Small Claims Court limit, currently $25,000:Reimann at para. 38. If plaintiffs fail to sufficiently investigate and assess their claims prior to commencement, they risk not recovering costs. In a personal injury action this may require plaintiffs to obtain medical records and medical reports, to gather evidence to support claims for loss of earnings and earning capacity, and to assess the evidence in support of the claims being advanced before commencing the action.

[11] However, as noted by Justice Savage in Gradek v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc, 2010 BCSC 356 at para. 19, R. 57(10) contemplates the possibility that factors other than quantum must be considered:

[19]      The proviso in Rule 57(10) is “unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in Supreme Court and so orders”. The Rule does not define “sufficient reason”. There is nothing in the Rule that limits the extension of the term “sufficient reason” to matters relating to the quantum of the claim.

[12] Factors that can give rise to “sufficient reason” were set out in Kuehne v. Probstl, 2004 BCSC 865 at para. 22, and accepted in Icecorp International Cargo Express Corp. v. Nicolaus, 2007 BCCA 97, 38 C.P.C. (6th) 26 at para. 27. They include:

i. the legal or factual complexity of the case;

ii. the need for discovery of documents and examinations for discovery;

iii. the need for a judgment enforceable outside of British Columbia;

iv. a bona fide preference for a jury trial; and

v. access to the summary trial procedure available in Supreme Court.

Other factors can be the need for the plaintiff to have legal counsel (Faedo v. Dowell, 2007 BCSC 1985 at para. 36; Ostovic v. Foggin, 2009 BCSC 58 at para. 42; Gradek at para. 43), and the defendant’s denial of liability, causation, and injury or loss and allegations of contributory negligence, pre-existing conditions, previous causes and a failure to mitigate (Ostovic at paras. 39-40; Gradek at para. 35).

[13] Therefore, a plaintiff’s evaluation of his or her claim, can also involve an assessment of these factors. Even if the plaintiff assesses the claim to be within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the plaintiff can rely on these other reasons to commence the action in Supreme Court: Johannson v. National Car Rental (Canada) Inc., 2009 BCSC 1284 at para. 5.

[14] In my opinion, a plaintiff’s simple desire to retain counsel is not in and of itself a sufficient reason for commencing the action in Supreme Court. Other factors, such as those noted above, determine whether retaining counsel is justified.

[15] In Faedo, the plaintiff was in a low impact collision and suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and back. Justice Vickers found that the case was not that complex and plaintiff’s counsel could not have considered ICBC’s original dispute of liability a serious threat to recovery. However, Justice Vickers concluded that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have brought her claim in Supreme Court for two reasons: (1) when the action was commenced, the plaintiff believed she was suffering from the accident and her pleadings included a claim for loss of earning capacity and disruption of the ability to earn income; and (2) ICBC put her credibility seriously in issue when it took the position that she had not suffered from any injury or any significant injury. Justice Vickers continued at para. 36:

[36]      … I observed this plaintiff to be very nervous in court. She had no previous experience in court and in my opinion when she was confronted with a case where the defendant represented by counsel was suggesting that she hadn’t been injured at all and this was a low impact accident in which it was suggested she wouldn’t be injured, that the plaintiff reasonably required counsel to represent her and reasonably started an action in the Supreme Court where she could hope to recover some of the cost of retaining that counsel which was necessary for her to properly put her case to get the compensation I have found her entitled to. Furthermore, an offer to settle such as the plaintiff made in this case puts very little pressure upon a defendant to settle where there is no exposure to costs.

[16] In Ostovic, another case arising out of a low impact accident, Justice Savage noted that because the defendant denied liability, causation and special damages, the plaintiff had to prove these issues in court. Because of this, the plaintiff needed to avail himself of pre-trial discovery, which provided important evidence of the speed of impact, the consequences of impact and concern over the plaintiff’s condition. In addition, Justice Savage found at para. 42:

[42]      There is the additional factor that, as in Faedo and Kanani [v. Misiurna, 2008 BCSC 1274], the Plaintiff faced an institutional defendant which, in the ordinary course, has counsel. To obtain any recovery the Plaintiff is forced to go to court, where he is facing counsel and counsel is reasonably required, but in Provincial Court there is no way of recovering the costs of counsel.

[17] In Gradek, before the issuance of the writ, the defendants’ insurers had informed the plaintiffs that their position was the accident did not result in any compensable injury. In their pleadings, the defendants denied liability and injury or loss and alleged contributory negligence, the existence of a pre-existing injury and previous causes, and a failure to mitigate. There was a broad range of findings possible respecting liability. The plaintiff, Henryk Gradek, was a Polish immigrant who spoke halting English. Justice Savage found at para. 42 that “he would have had extraordinary difficulty presenting a case on his own” and would have been “out-matched” by either a lawyer or an ICBC adjustor. The plaintiff needed counsel to obtain a just result and, therefore, had sufficient reason to begin the action in Supreme Court.

[18] Plaintiffs do not have an ongoing duty to reassess their claims as the matter proceeds: Reimann at para. 44. Thus, the court must assess whether a plaintiff had “sufficient reason” to bring the action in Supreme Court when the plaintiff started the action: Ostovic at para. 35. This analysis is necessarily done with the benefit of hindsight since it only occurs after trial or settlement, but the court must be careful not to use that hindsight in deciding what was reasonable: Faedo at para. 28.

[19] It also must be remembered R. 57(10) “does not involve an exercise of discretion.” Rather, “the court must make a finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Supreme Court” (emphasis added): Reimann at para. 13.

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

Setting Aside an Unfair Settlement in an ICBC Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Settlement Law, Uncategorized. 58 Comments on Setting Aside an Unfair Settlement in an ICBC Injury Claim


As I’ve previously written, typically when an ICBC claim is settled and a “full and final release” is signed the agreement is binding and can’t be undone.
BC Courts can, however, set aside ‘grossly unfair‘ agreements.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dealing with this area of the law.
In today’s case (McIsaac v. McIsaac) the Plaintiff was injured in a single vehicle car crash.  Her husband was driving and was the at fault party.   The Plaintiff’s injuries were serious enough to require hospitalization.
In the months that followed the collision ICBC approached the Plaintiff on a number of occasions and eventually a settlement was reached to resolve her claims for $22,000.  The agreement was ‘somewhat low‘ given the severity of her injuries.  She regretted finalizing her claim and retained a lawyer.   She commenced a lawsuit and asked the settlement to be set aside.  ICBC argued that it was a binding contract and should not be undone.  Mr. Justice Wong agreed with ICBC but before dismissing the lawsuit the Court set out the following useful summary of the law:

[17] I agree with defendant’s counsel’s submission that there are two alternative tests to assess the validity of the settlement.  Also, to have a settlement set aside or voided, the insured must have been unfairly induced to accept the settlement or release, and that the settlement or release must also be grossly unfair or grossly inadequate.  Settlement and release of a claim may not be set aside where the parties are not on equal footing if the insurer can demonstrate that the settlement is fair and reasonable.

[18] There are two alternative tests to determine the validity of a settlement.  Whether, when the settlement is looked at in the light of the knowledge of the adjuster at the time the settlement was entered into, the bargain was fair, just and reasonable, and whether the transaction seen as a whole is not sufficiently divergent from community standards of commercial morality that it should be rescinded.  See McCullogh v. Hilton (1998) 63 B.C.L.R. (3d) 272 (B.C.C.A.) and see also Gindis v. Brisbourne (2000) 72 B.C.L.R. (3d) 19 (B.C.C.A.), particularly at paragraphs 42 to 44.

[19] A settlement with an unrepresented claimant will not necessarily be invalid simply because all of the symptoms stemming from any injuries have not been fully resolved.  Again, see McCullogh.

[20] There is no evidence that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were, at the time of settlement, any worse than what was understood by the plaintiff and the adjuster, nor is there any evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries have become any worse since the settlement was entered into.

[21] Quite apart from any alleged inequality of bargaining power, the plaintiff and the adjuster had a complete picture of the plaintiff’s medical condition at the time of the settlement directly from the plaintiff’s medical caregivers.

[22] Clearly on the evidence, the plaintiff relied on and trusted the ICBC adjuster and their bargaining power were unequal, but the ultimate question is whether viewed objectively, the agreement was unconscionable and offended applicable standards of commercial morality.

[23] I am satisfied on the evidence that it cannot be said that the plaintiff was taken advantage of by ICBC.  The plaintiff, upon receiving the offer to settle at $22,000, could have consulted with a lawyer before accepting the offer, but for reasons of her own chose not to.

[24] Counsel for the plaintiff now submits the adjuster relied on outdated 12 to 18 year case law authorities as guidance on damage quantum range, and did not make any adjustment for interim inflation.  Be that as it may, the amount offered likely also factored in some discount for contributory negligence by the plaintiff in not being seat belted at the time of the accident.

[25] I might consider the amount settled by the parties in this case to be somewhat low, but taking into account all of the outlined factors related earlier, I cannot say the bargain struck was grossly unfair and unconscionable.  In order to maintain consistency and predictability in commercial transactions, public policy requires court enforcement of contracts not found to be unconscionable.

BC Court of Appeal Clarifies Discretionary Costs Awards in Fast Track Trials

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on BC Court of Appeal Clarifies Discretionary Costs Awards in Fast Track Trials

As I’ve previously written, when a person wins in a lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court they are usually entitled to ‘costs‘.
The normal amount of costs a successful litigant is entitled to are set out in a tariff as an appendix to the Rules of Court (appendix B).  However, in fast track trials, the amount of costs a person is entitled to is capped under Rule 66.  A judge has discretion to waive this cap and award a litigant more.  Today, the BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgement dealing with the extent of that discretion.
In today’s case (Majewska v. Partyka) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 BC car crash.  ICBC admitted that the driver was at fault.  The lawsuit focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.  The Plaintiff made a formal offer to settle her case for $50,000.  ICBC made a formal offer for $25,000.  The trial judge ultimately awarded just over $62,000 in damages.
The Court went on to award the Plaintiff double costs under the ‘usual tariff‘.  ICBC argued that while the Court did have discretion to award costs above the capped amount set our in Rule 66(29) the Judge was wrong in awarding them under the ‘usual tarriff’ and should have used the limited amounts set out in Rule 66 as guidance for the increased costs award.  The BC Court of Appeal agreed and set out the following principles:
[29] Thus, Anderson established two principles. First, it confirmed that there is discretion to award costs beyond the limits in R. 66(29) if there are special circumstances. Second, where such an award is justified, it affirmed that costs should be calculated using those limits as reference points, rather than under the usual tariff…

[31] I appreciate that Anderson dealt only with a settlement offer, whereas there were additional special circumstances in this case. The trial had run for three and a half days, and there was an issue of some complexity. However, the approach in Anderson can easily be adapted to calculate costs for extra days of trial by adding a further $1,600 for each day, based on the present figures of $5,000 and $6,600 in R. 66(29). This was the approach used by Gerow J. in Park, where the R. 66 trial had taken three days.

[32] Using the amounts in R. 66(29) as a basis for awarding increased costs because the issues were complex is not as straightforward. I am persuaded, however, that theAnderson approach could be adapted effectively to accomplish this, again by using those amounts as the basis for calculations.

[33] This approach brings desirable consistency and predictability to costs awards following fast track litigation. The varied approaches that have developed under R. 66 have led to uncertainty with respect to both exposure to and recovery of costs under the rule. Having opted into the R. 66 process, fast track litigants should be able to reliably assess their potential costs liability or recovery in making decisions about the conduct of the case….

[37] I would conclude that the discretionary nature of R. 66(29) is circumscribed by the objectives of R. 66: to provide a speedier and less expensive process for relatively short trials. Those objectives are best served by awarding lump sum costs, calculated by reference to the amounts in R. 66(29).

[38] I acknowledge there may be situations that justify a departure from such costs. I anticipate these would be “exceptional” circumstances rather than “special” circumstances, and might include situations deserving of special costs or solicitor client costs, however, such matters must be left for another day.

[39] I would therefore allow the appeal, and calculate costs under R. 66(29) as follows. Under the present limits of $5,000 and $6,600 I take the pre-trial portion of costs to be $3,400, and $1,600 as representative of each day of trial. The plaintiff’s offer to settle was delivered only six days before trial. Thus, she is not entitled to double costs for trial preparation. She is, however, entitled to double costs for three and a half days of trial, calculated at $3,200 per day. Total costs are thus $14,600 ($3,400 plus $11,200) before disbursements and taxes.

Despite winning the appeal, the BCCA ordered that ICBC pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the appeal because this was a ‘test case‘ and but for that reason ICBC would not have proceeded with the appeal.  The Court stated as follows:

[42] In my view, an order that each party bear its own costs would not be appropriate. The amount in issue is not so significant that the parties would have undertaken the appeal of their own accord. Because the defendant’s insurer chose to use it as a test case, the plaintiff was put to the expense of responding to the appeal. The defendant’s late and unsuccessful attempt to raise a second ground of appeal increased that expense, as the plaintiff had to reply to the new ground as well. In Patterson v. Rankel (1998), 166 D.L.R. (4th) 574 (B.C.C.A.), Southin J.A. described the same insurer’s agreement to pay the plaintiff’s costs in a “test case” as “a very proper thing to do”, and ordered costs in those terms. I agree that is the appropriate result in such a case.

I should point out that Rule 66 is being taken off the books as of July 1, 2010 and being replaced with Rule 15.  However, today’s case ought to retain value as a precedent under the new rule because Rule 15-1(15) has language almost identical to Rule 66(29).

One of the Best Lawyers of All Time Demonstrating the Art of Cross Examination

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Injury Claims Media Archives, Uncategorized.

Cross examination is one of most important skills of a trial lawyer.  While there have been many useful texts written on the subject there is no better way to learn than seeing an effective cross-examination in action.
Gerry Spence is considered by many to be one of the best lawyers of all time.  Here is a great video of Mr. Spence demonstrating a cross-examination before a class in Ann-Arbor, Michigan some 25 years ago.
In this exercise the Defence witness had provided evidence supporting the Defendant’s case that they were not negligent.  Mr. Spence only makes one point in this clip; that this witness used the services of a ‘witness-consultant‘ before testifying.   Watch how much damage is done to this witness’ credibility with this one simple point brought out over the course of several very effective minutes.

Back to Basics – BC Injury Trials and "Relevant" Evidence

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

If evidence is not relevant it is not admissible at trial.  So what exactly is relevant evidence in a personal injury lawsuit?  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, providing a concise and useful definition.
In today’s case (Beazley v. Suzuki Motor Corporation) the Plaintiff was injured while involved in a single vehicle accident involving a Geo Tracker.  The lawsuit focused on whether the Tracker was safely designed.   In support of her case the Plaintiff wished to put hundreds of documents into evidence.  The Defendants objected to some of these arguing that they were not relevant.
Mr. Justice Goepel went through the objections one by one and ruled that some of the documents were relevant and some were not.  Before reaching his decisions Mr. Justice Goepel provided the following useful definition of relevant evidence:

[15] To be admissible, evidence must be relevant to the facts in issue and not subject to exclusion under any other rule of law or policy.  Evidence is relevant “where it has some tendency as a matter of logic and human experience to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than the proposition would appear to be in the absence of that evidence” ( D.M. Paciocco & L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (Toronto: Irwin Law,1996) at 19).

[16] In a civil case, the facts in issue are established by the pleadings.  Evidence unrelated to the issues as disclosed in the pleadings is not admissible.

[17] Not all relevant evidence is admissible.  The court must also balance the cost to the trial the process of admitting the evidence.  The judge’s task was described by Sopinka J. in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 at 20-21:

Relevance is a matter to be decided by a judge as question of law. Although prima facie admissible if so related to a fact in issue that it tends to establish it, that does not end the inquiry. This merely determines the logical relevance of the evidence. Other considerations enter into the decision as to admissibility. This further inquiry may be described as a cost benefit analysis, that is “whether its value is worth what it costs.” See McCormick on Evidence (3rd ed. 1984), at p. 544. Cost in this context is not used in its traditional economic sense but rather in terms of its impact on the trial process. Evidence that is otherwise logically relevant may be excluded on this basis, if its probative value is overborne by its prejudicial effect, if it involves an inordinate amount of time which is not commensurate with its value or if it is misleading in the sense that its effect on the trier of fact, particularly a jury, is out of proportion to its reliability. While frequently considered as an aspect of legal relevance, the exclusion of logically relevant evidence on these grounds is more properly regarded as a general exclusionary rule (see Morris v. The Queen, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190). Whether it is treated as an aspect of relevance or an exclusionary rule, the effect is the same.

[18] While the above passage was written in the context of the admissibility of expert evidence, the same principles must be considered in determining the admissibility of any form of evidence.

Produce Vendor Found Liable For Slip and Fall Injury Involving Dropped Grape

Written by admin on . Posted in Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized. 46 Comments on Produce Vendor Found Liable For Slip and Fall Injury Involving Dropped Grape


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding a produce vendor liable for injuries sustained when a shopper slipped and fell on a dropped grape.
In today’s case (Davis v. Kin’s Farm Market) the 75 year Plaintiff was shopping in Lynn Valley Mall in North Vancouver.  As he walked “past the fruit and vegetable display tables located outside of Kin’s Market, he slipped and fell on a green grape“.
The grape was just outside of Kin’s Market in an area that was “encroaching somewhat into the marbled tiles forming the mall pedestrian corridor“.   The Plaintiff sued the owner of the Mall and the produce store.
The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff was at fault for his injuries and that they were not responsible because they had a reasonable system to deal with hazards on the floor.  However, this was contradicted by a witness who gave evidence that “several hours after the ambulance took (the Plaintiff) away”  there were “more grapes on the marble tiles immediately outside the store”  and that after bringing these grapes to the attention to the employee in charge of Kin’s Market “this employee took no steps to clean up the grapes“.
Madam Justice Bruce went on to find both Defendants liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries.  Specifically the Court reasoned as follows:

[39] In addition to having no reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place to address spills from the bins and display tables outside the store, I find that the employees were not complying with the standards set by their employer on the day of the accident. Ms. Janda’s evidence tends to show that the employees of Kin’s Market were lax in regard to the cleanliness of the areas surrounding the bins. While evidence of a failure to comply with the cleaning policies well prior to the date of the accident cannot be used to infer such a failure on the date of the accident, in this case there is evidence that just hours after Mr. Davis’ fall there were more grapes on the marble tiles adjacent to the bins displayed by Kin’s Market. This evidence suggests that the employees of Kin’s Market had rather poor powers of observation. Moreover, the fact that on two occasions on June 5, 2005, employees of Kin’s Market took no steps to clean up fallen grapes after the spills were brought to their attention strongly suggests that they took no responsibility for any produce that landed beyond the brick tiles.

[40] Lastly, Kin’s Market argues that even if it failed to meet the standard of care owed as an occupier, the fact that the Owner met this standard removes any responsibility they may have for the accident. I am unable to accept this argument. Where there are two occupiers of premises, each of them owes a duty of care to persons invited to enter the premises. The fact that the Owner may rebut a prima facie breach of the Act does not obviate the necessity for Kin’s Market to also satisfy the two pronged test articulated by the Court of Appeal inAtkins. Permitting grapes to remain on the floor as a hazard is negligent absent proof that a reasonable system of maintenance and inspection was in place and being followed on the day of the accident. Kin’s Market has failed to satisfy this onus and it is irrelevant whether the Owner has led evidence that shows it met the required standard of care.

The Court went on to find that the Plaintiff was not at fault for falling reasoning as follows:

[60] Kin’s Market argues that Mr. Davis had an obligation to keep a proper look out for his own safety and to be aware of his surroundings: Gervais v. Do, 2000 BCSC 1271, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1732. Kin’s Market points to Mr. Davis’ admission that his attention was not directed to where he was walking before he fell; rather, he was looking toward the Shoppers Drug Mart. He was familiar with the mall and could have avoided the fall had he been paying attention to the floor where he was walking…

[62] In my view, it is not reasonable to expect Mr. Davis to be staring at his feet as he walked through the mall towards the Shoppers Drug Mart. Had he positioned his head in a downward direction to detect possible hazards on the floor, Mr. Davis may have stepped over the grapes in his path; however, he may also have run into another mall patron possibly causing damage to himself and the other person. It is also understandable that Mr. Davis would not be cognizant of the risks associated with walking in the common area of the mall adjacent to Kin’s Market, particularly as he was three to four feet from the display tables. He was not inside the store where he may have been alerted to the possibility of produce that had fallen to the floor. Lastly, I find Mr. Davis’ circumstances are similar to that found by the Court of Appeal in Coulson. The tenants in the mall design their displays to attract customers’ eyes. They do not encourage patrons to keep their eyes on the floor ahead of their feet. As Bauman J. (as he then was) said in Dufty v. Great Pacific Industries Inc., 2000 BCSC 1474, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1988 at para. 44:

[44]      As to the issue of contributory negligence, it has been said many times, most recently by Justice Burnyeat in Coleman v. Yen Hoy Ent. et al, 2000 BCSC 276 [In Chambers], that while there is a duty on the plaintiff to be aware of her surroundings, it is not the case that she is required to “glue her eyes to the ground.”

ICBC Injury Claims and the Relevance of Vehicle Damage

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, Uncategorized.


The law has become clear that while ICBC’s LVI policy is not a legal principle and is not a valid legal defence, the amount of vehicle damage is a factor judges and juries can consider in a BC injury claim.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Cahoon v. Brideaux) the Plaintiff was injured in a car crash.  There was minimal vehicle damage.  The Plaintiff’s claim was largely rejected by a Jury at trial.  Prior to giving their verdict the Trial Judge told the Jury that “From that evidence you are asked to draw inferences about how hard Mrs. Brideaux struck Mrs. Cahoon, and from those inferences you are asked to draw another inference about what injuries that impact caused to Mrs. Cahoon. ”
The Plaintiff appealed arguing in part that the Judge was wrong to give the above instruction to the Jury.  The BC Court of Appeal disagreed and gave clear reasons indicating that a Court can consider the amount of vehicle damage during an injury claim.  Specifically the High Court stated as follows:

[82] The issue addressed in the passage from Gordon v. Palmer (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 236 (S.C.) quoted in Lubick was whether the “no crash, no cash” policy of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was founded on a valid legal or medical principle.  Mr. Justice Thackray noted that no evidence was called to substantiate the theory that minimal impacts could not cause injury and went on to resolve the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries in that case on the lay and medical evidence before him.  Similarly, it appears the issue addressed in this passage in Lubick was the defence contention that such a minimal impact could not have injured the plaintiff.  However, these passages do not represent a statement of legal principle that in low-impact collision cases, the defendant has the burden of proving the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the collision.  It is well-settled law that the burden is always on plaintiffs in these cases to prove the nature and extent of their injuries and to prove they were caused by the defendant’s negligence.

[83] Here, the respondents did not argue that Mrs. Cahoon could not have been injured in the collision.  Rather, they conceded she suffered some injury but submitted that she was exaggerating her injuries and that she had not proven that all of the injuries and losses of which she complained were caused by the collision.  The burden of proof of these matters lay with Mrs. Cahoon – the respondents did not bear the burden of proving that the injuries she claimed were not caused by the collision.

[84] The evidence of automobile damage was relevant to the question whether Mrs. Cahoon suffered the injuries she claimed as a result of the collision.  In R. v. Watson (1996), 108 C.C.C. (3d) 310 at 323-24 (Ont. C.A.), Doherty J.A explained relevance as follows:

… Relevance … requires a determination of whether as a matter of human experience and logic the existence of “Fact A” makes the existence or non-existence of “Fact B” more probable than it would be without the existence of “Fact A.”  If it does then “Fact A” is relevant to “Fact B”.  As long as “Fact B” is itself a material fact in issue or is relevant to a material fact in issue in the litigation then “Fact A” is relevant and prima facie admissible.

[85] Human experience and logic, qualities for which juries are particularly valued, are the essence of common sense.  They suggest there is a relationship between the force of an impact between two vehicles and the resulting damage to the vehicles.  Thus, evidence of minimal damage makes it more likely the force of the impact was minimal (Fact A).  Human experience and logic also suggest there is a relationship between force exerted on the human body and injury caused by the force.  Thus, evidence of minimal force applied to the human body tends to make it more probable that the resulting injury would not be serious (Fact B).  It follows that the evidence of vehicle damage was relevant on this issue and the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that they could use it as circumstantial evidence.

[86] It follows, as well, that I would reject Mrs. Cahoon’s submission that the trial judge erred in permitting the jury to use this evidence to “override” the expert medical opinion evidence on causation.  The weight to be given low-impact evidence will depend on the particular circumstances of each case.  Here, Mrs. Cahoon led expert medical opinion evidence that the collision caused her very serious injuries.  These opinions on the causation issue were based on various facts, including Mrs. Cahoon’s descriptions of her injuries and the dynamics of the collision.  The jury was required to consider the expert opinions but was not bound to accept them.  Rather, it was for the jury to determine what weight to assign to those opinions after weighing all of the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence of the force of the collision.

The Low Threshold For Video-Conference Testimony in BC Injury Trials

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 43 Comments on The Low Threshold For Video-Conference Testimony in BC Injury Trials


When injury claims go to trial witnesses may live far from the Court house.  These distances can make it very inconvenient for Plaintiffs to assemble all the necessary people to prove their case.  Fortunately, the BC Evidence Act allows witnesses to give their evidence, in certain circumstances, by way of video-conference.   Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that such orders can be routinely made.
In today’s case (Nybo v. Kralj) the Plaintiff was injured in an accident.  Her claim went to trial before a Jury in Vancouver.  She wished to have her sister (who lived in Penticton), her boyfriend at the time of the accident (who lived in Washington) and her colleague (who lived in Ontario) to give “before and after” evidence to help illustrate the impact of the accident related injuries on her life.
The Plaintiff applied to have these witnesses testify by video conference.  The Defendant opposed.
The Plaintiff’s lawyer did not present any evidence in support of the application.  The witnesses were not subpoenaed.  The witnesses did not even swear an affidavit explaining why they could not (or didn’t want to) attend court.  Despite all of the this Madam Justice Dillon ordered that they could testify by video.  In reaching this conclusion the Court reasoned as follows:

[8] Testimony of a witness at trial by videoconferencing is provided for under s. 73 of the Evidence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 124. The pertinent sub-sections of s. 73 say:

(2) A court may allow a witness to testify in a proceeding by means of closed circuit television or any other technology that allows the court, the parties and the witness to engage in simultaneous visual and oral communication, unless

(a) one of the parties satisfies the court that receiving the testimony in that manner would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, or

(b) the technology is not available for the proceeding.

(3) If a party objects to the court receiving evidence in the manner described in subsection (2), the court may consider any of the following circumstances:

(a) the location and personal circumstances of the witness;

(b) the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present;

(c) the nature of the evidence the witness is expected to give;

(d) any other circumstance the court considers appropriate.

(4) A party intending to call a witness to give evidence in a proceeding by means described in subsection (2) must

(a) give notice of that intention to the court before which the evidence is to be given and to all of the other parties, and

(b) pay all costs associated with the use of the technology unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(5) Notice must be given under subsection (4) (a)

(a) at least 5 days before the witness is scheduled to testify in the proceeding, or

(b) if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances, within some shorter period specified by the court….

(8) Nothing in this section prevents a court from receiving evidence of a witness by means described in subsection (2) if the parties consent.

11]       (The BC Evidence Act) establishes that the court may allow videoconference evidence if another party does not consent unless the non-consenting party satisfies the court that receiving the testimony in that manner would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. In my view, this expresses a narrower view of the exclusion of videoconferencing and puts the onus on the party who would deny use of the technology. Factors to consider are set out in s. 73(3) of the Evidence Act.

[12] In this case, there is no suggestion that cross-examination will be adversely affected or that the evidence is of such importance that actual presence of the witnesses is required. The reasons for not consenting relate to the reasons given for the witnesses not attending which are, really, that they do not want to leave work and family commitments in order to testify. While such a common reason may have held significant weight in the past, I consider that s. 73 of the Evidence Act favours use of the technology with personal circumstances of the witness and location as only one factor to consider. Here, the witnesses will give relevant, although not crucial evidence. They are located significantly away from this courthouse, although Penticton is within reasonable distance. Given that the onus is on the non-consenting party here, the balance favours granting use of the technology for all three witnesses even though this is a jury trial. If there had been other factors affecting the Penticton witness in favour of the defendant, I may not have granted the order in her situation given the general principle. However, the balance favours the plaintiff overall in these circumstances.

BC Court of Appeal Discusses Documents Used in Cross Examination and Disclosure Requirements

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

Further to my recent post discussing this topic, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal discussing parties responsibilities to disclose documents they intend to use at trial for cross-examination purposes.
In today’s case (Cahoon v. Brideaux) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.  The crash was described as a “minor rear ender“,  Despite the minor vehicle damage the Plaintiff claimed serious and prolonged injuries.  She asked the jury to award her damages of over $1.3 million.  The jury rejected much of the Plaintiff’s claim and assessed damages of just over $34,000.
The Plaintiff appealed on various grounds arguing that she was deprived of a fair trial.  One of the arguments on appeal was an allegation that the Defence lawyer ‘ambushed‘ the Plaintiff during cross examination by using a document that ‘had not been properly described in the list of documents’.  Specifically the Plaintiff testified during trial that she had “clear title” on her home.  The Defence lawyer then challenged this with a copy of a mortgage which contradicted the Plaintiff’s evidence.  This document was listed on the Defence Lawyer’s list of documents but was not identified in a clear manner.
The BC Court of Appeal held in 2 recent cases (click here and here to read about these) that if parties fail to adequately describe privileged documents in their list then the evidence may not be allowed in at trial.  The Plaintiff cited these cases as precedents.  The Court of Appeal rejected the Plaintiff’s argument and distinguished these cases.  In concluding that no prejudice arose from the failure to adequately describe the mortgage document the Court provided the following reasons:

[39] However, in this case, no similar prejudice resulted from the failure of the respondents to describe the mortgage copy in compliance with Rule 26(2.1) since the trial was already underway when the document came into existence and into the possession of defence counsel.  Moreover, in contrast to Stone, the information in the copy document was known to Mrs. Cahoon – the original mortgage was her own document.  In the context of this discussion, the photocopy was evidence of an inconsistent out-of-court statement made in writing by Mrs. Cahoon before the trial.  I do not understand Stone to stand for the proposition that cross-examining counsel’s possession of such evidence must be disclosed to the witness before cross-examination on the statement will be permitted or, to frame the proposition as Mrs. Cahoon frames it, that to permit cross-examining counsel to surprise a witness with such a statement is improper “trial by ambush”.  Such a rule would insulate witnesses against the effects of cross-examination on prior inconsistent statements and would undermine the search for truth in the litigation.  As well, it would be contrary to the purpose identified in Blank for which litigation privilege is granted.

[40] In summary, Mrs. Cahoon made false statements (that her home was “clear title” and that she had no mortgage on it, let alone one for $800,000) and defence counsel confronted her with the copy of the mortgage and demonstrated the falsity of her earlier answers.  Mrs. Cahoon gave an innocent explanation for her false answers – she said she had been mistaken – and she amplified her explanation in re-examination.  Her counsel called further evidence from the credit union’s solicitor to explain the transaction and to support Mrs. Cahoon’s explanation of her inconsistent answers.  Counsel for both parties addressed the jury as to the weight and significance they should attach to this evidence.

[41] All of this was relevant to Mrs. Cahoon’s credibility, which was a central issue in the case.  There was nothing improper or unfair in the way in which defence counsel dealt with this evidence at trial and I would reject this ground of appeal.

This case is worth reviewing in full for all BC injury lawyers.  In addition to the above topic, the BC High Court gives extensive reasons on the role of lawyers in advancing their client’s claims and the type of arguments that are permissible before juries.

More on Privacy Rights, Compelled Disclosure and the Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality

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


Further to my previous posts on this topic, when people sue (or are sued) in the BC Supreme Court the Rules force disclosure of certain facts and documents.  To balance the parties privacy interests the Courts have developed an “implied undertaking of confidentiality” which is basically a judge made rule that “requires a party to civil litigation to keep confidential all information disclosed by adverse parties in the litigation under the compulsion of discovery procedures.  The receiving party is only to use the disclosed information in the litigation in which it was produced”
The implied undertaking can be lifted by an order of the Court or by consent of the party that disclosed the information.  Another way the implied undertaking can come to an end is if the case goes to “open court”.   The question is when is the open court exception triggered.  As most lawyers know most cases don’t go to trial but it is common to have pre-trial applications held in open court.  In such a case is the exception triggered?  Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with this novel issue.
In today’s case (Bodnar v. The Cash Store inc.) the Plaintiff’s were involved in a lawsuit.  During the course of that claim a pre-trial motion was brought which relied, in part, on documents produced by the Defendant by the compulsion of the forced disclosure under the Rules of Court.  The case ultimately settled and a different class of Plaintiff’s brought a “virtually identical” lawsuit.
The Plaintiff’s wished to use the materials obtained in the first lawsuit in the second claim.  The Defendant’s would not consent arguing that the implied undertaking of confidentiality prohibited this use.  The Court was asked whether having the documents used in a pre-trial chambers application triggered the open court exception.  Madam Justice Griffin provided the following useful analysis:

[45] I conclude that a proper balancing of the public interest involved in the implied undertaking rule and in the open court principle, in respect of information filed in court as part of an interim application, can best be achieved by applying the following principles:

(a) the implied undertaking does not end when information, produced by an adverse party under compulsion of discovery (the “Producing Party”), is filed in court by the receiving party (the “Receiving Party”) in support of an interim application;

(b) in considering a Receiving Party’s application for leave to be relieved from the implied undertaking, the court may consider, as one factor in support of leave, the fact that the information was filed in court for a legitimate purpose and became part of the court record; and

(c) the implied undertaking of a Receiving Party ends, with respect to information produced by the Producing Party, when that information is filed in court by the Producing Party itself.

[46] The above principles would seek to avoid the mischief of a party with ulterior motives filing the adverse party’s information in court simply to get around the implied undertaking.  Upholding the implied undertaking and placing the onus on the Receiving Party to seek the court’s leave before using the information for another purpose, would encourage parties to fulfill their discovery obligations knowing that the implied undertaking cannot easily be avoided.   At the same time, the fact that the documents are now part of the court record, available to all other persons, will be one important factor to be considered by the court on a Receiving Party’s subsequent application for leave to use the documents for other purposes.

[47] It makes sense however, that the implied undertaking is lost when the Producing Party files its own information in open court.  There can be no concern about abuse of process or a deliberate attempt to circumvent the implied undertaking rule in such a situation, given that the Producing Party is not under any undertaking with respect to its own information and was not compelled to produce it in court.

The Court went on to hold that, despite the implied undertaking not coming to an end by virtue of the documents use in court, it would be appropriate to permit the Plaintiff’s to use the information in the subsequent lawsuit.  This case is worth reviewing in full for anyone interested in the developing principles of privacy law in BC as the judgement contains a lengthy discussion of the principles at play and the relevant precedents addressing the “implied undertaking of confidentiality”.