Skip to main content

Uninsured, Self Represented Litigant Learns that Perjury is a Poor Idea

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Uncategorized.

From the vault of how not to represent yourself in court, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, admonishing a self represented litigant for providing the Court with perjured evidence.
In today’s case (Dizon v. Losier) the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle driven by the Plaintiff.  The Defendant was uninsured at the time and represented himself in court.  As part of his defense strategy he called a witness who said he witnessed the collision and the Plaintiff stopped for no reason.  On cross examination it became clear that this witness did not see the collision and colluded to provide this friendly evidence for the Defendant.  The Court went on to find the Defendant largely at fault for the crash, ordering payment of almost $40,000 in damages, costs, and one day of ‘specical costs’ for the perjured evidence. In admonishing this evidence Madam Justice Russell provided the following comments:

[43]         Mr. Losier called a witness who provided completely concocted evidence about seeing the plaintiff’s car stop for no reason just before the accident. This witness, Mr. Dale Carmount, was asked by this Court if he had known the defendant before the accident. This was done in order to test whether there had been any complicity with respect to this convenient account of events. Mr. Carmount denied having met the plaintiff before the accident. Instead, he said he had responded to a notice posted by Mr. Losier asking for witnesses to the accident.

[44]         In cross-examination, plaintiff’s counsel referred to a Facebook page that Mr. Carmount denied existed, but which was clearly that of Mr. Carmount, and then asked him about family relationships. Mr. Carmount then revealed that, through family in Ontario, Mr. Carmount and Mr. Losier were acquainted before the accident.

[45]         In light of this evidence, I find that the two of them developed a statement for Mr. Carmount to sign that was completely untrue. Mr. Carmount had not witnessed the accident occurring as he had stated under oath.

[46]         That this evidence amounted to perjury, for which both participants could have been prosecuted, was not lost on Mr. Losier. He tendered an apology to the Court.

[47]         This turn of events significantly undermined the reliability of the defendant’s evidence.

…

[84]         … the plaintiff will be awarded one day of special costs for the unnecessary delay in this matter for the consideration of the perjured evidence from the defendant.

…

$85,000 For Chronic Myofascial Pain From Three Collisions

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries.
In today’s case (Dhillon v. Singer) the Plaintiff was involved in three collisions which the Defendants admitted  fault for or were found liable.  The collisions resulted in chronic myofascial pain with a poor prognosis for further improvement.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Fleming provided the following reasons:

[134]     Regarding the plaintiff’s physical injuries and symptoms my analysis and findings are as follows:

·       After the first accident, Mrs. Dhillon experienced fairly intense pain arising from soft tissue injuries to her neck, upper back and right shoulder that interfered with her sleep, as well as headaches. Prior to returning to work, her pain symptoms had reduced significantly but they were not fully resolved. The plaintiff certainly felt well enough to work full-time. I accept that after she returned to work as a parking lot attendant, pain symptoms in her neck and her shoulder sometimes worsened causing her sleep difficulties.

·       I find the plaintiff continued to experience some pain in her shoulder and neck prior to the second accident although her symptoms were not as intense or constant as she described, and were likely mild. Mrs. Dhillon testified that despite telling her doctor she was still in significant pain in January 2012, he provided her with a medical note to submit along with her application to the pharmacy assistant program confirming she was in good physical and mental health. I am not persuaded the doctor would have written such a note if the plaintiff was at that time complaining of significant ongoing pain symptoms. I also put limited weight on the gap in his clinical records from May 20, 2011 to March 2, 2012 which demonstrate the plaintiff otherwise attended appointments regularly in relation to the accidents. I consider the gap, bearing in mind the decision of Justice N. Smith in Edmondson v. Payer, 2011 BCSC 118, aff’d 2012 BCCA 114, regarding the admissibility and use of clinical records. At paras. 36 and 37 he concluded the absence of any record cannot be the sole basis for an inference about whether an injury or symptom existed or not.

·       I find the second accident likely reinjured the soft tissues in the plaintiff’s neck and upper back as well as the other shoulder area, worsening and broadening her pain symptoms to some extent.

·       I accept the plaintiff experienced some increased pain and discomfort while studying for prolonged periods, particularly after the second accident, given the posture required. This may have affected her ability to concentrate to some extent. Her timely, very successful completion of the pharmacy assistant program satisfies me, however, that both before and after the second accident, those symptoms were not meaningfully disabling. I do not accept her evidence that she was required to study twice as much to achieve such high grades.

·       I find that by September 2012 the plaintiff’s pain symptoms were mostly mild, not modest as she testified.

·       I accept the plaintiff suffered from a flare up in her pain symptoms, accompanied by fatigue and some psychological symptoms in May 2013 which lasted for at least two weeks. The date on a medical note prepared by her family doctor corroborates her evidence regarding the timing of the flare up. Employment records confirm she worked less for a two week period during that month.

·       Following the third accident, I find the plaintiff experienced a significant increase in the level and scope of her pain caused by new soft tissue injuries that extended to her low back and an aggravation of previous soft tissue injuries in her shoulders, upper back and neck, along with worsened headaches. I also find that as a result of the third accident and her increased pain symptoms, previously transient psychological and cognitive symptoms including feelings of sadness or depression, irritability, anxiety, low energy and difficulties with concentration intensified markedly, particularly after she returned to work in November 2013. Although her pain symptoms had lessened considerably by then, I accept they worsened during the course of the work day, disrupting her sleep. I have no doubt the plaintiff was discouraged by the experience of working with ongoing pain and fatigue, particularly given the demands of her job as a pharmacy assistant, namely the need for accuracy. Although, I accept the plaintiff worked as much as she could, I do not accept that her pain symptoms were severe. Severe pain is inconsistent with her evidence that she worked 32 to 34 hours per week. In fact she worked more than that, except for the months in 2016 leading up to trial in August. Her employment records for 2014 indicate she rarely worked less than 35 hours per week and most often between 35 and 39 hours, not 32 to 34. I infer from the amount she actually worked that her symptoms were not as intense or as disabling as she suggested.

·       I accept the plaintiff’s testimony that she attended the emergency department and received an injection in June 2014 because of increased pain, but conclude the flare up was relatively brief given her hours of work were reduced for a two-week period only. She attended the Change Pain Clinic in the fall of 2014 and declined the proposed injection series because she had less pain by then. I find her pain symptoms at that point were mostly mild and sometimes moderate. At the same time her psychological symptoms had subsided due to Pristiq allowing the plaintiff to cope more effectively.

·       By 2015 or early 2016, the plaintiff’s sleep was less disrupted and she was no longer taking over the counter pain medication as frequently, indicating her pain symptoms had become intermittent although ongoing.

…

[143]     After each of the three accidents, the first and third in particular, Mrs. Dhillon endured significant pain symptoms and headaches. Following the first and third accidents, her pain symptoms were severe enough to prevent her from working at all for some months. Her sleep was very disrupted. Since her return to work in November 2013, Mrs. Dhillon has continued to experience variable levels of pain in her neck, shoulders, upper and lower back and psychological and cognitive symptoms, all of which have improved and are likely intermittent, but now chronic. Ongoing pain has affected Mrs. Dhillon’s intimate relationship with her husband. She has also been somewhat less able to play badminton with her children and she avoids more elaborate cooking, something she loved to do before the accidents. Mrs. Dhillon has and will continue to experience some pain while working although not to the extent she claims. Mrs. Dhillon’s mood symptoms are reasonably well managed, although she continues to have low moments and feelings of anxiety in response to pain and fatigue. On the whole, however, the plaintiff is able to enjoy her family and everyday life and take pride in her work.

[144]     Applying the factors identified in Stapley to the facts of this case and bearing in mind my review of the authorities provided by the parties, I conclude an award of $85,000 is fair and reasonable.

Pub Found Partly At Fault for Crash Caused by "Visibly Intoxicated" Patron

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding a Pub jointly and severally liable for a collision by a patron who was served alcohol to the point of visible intoxication.
In today’s case (Widdows v. Rockwell) the Defendant drove a vehicle and collided with the Plaintiff pedestrian.  The crash caused severe injuries, including brain damage.
At the time the Defendant was “quite literally, falling-down drunk.“.
Prior to the crash the Defendant was drinking at a local pub. In finding the pub jointly and severally liable for over serving a patron and failing to take reasonable steps to ensure he was not driving Mr. Justice Kent provided the following reasons:

[58]         Insofar as Rockwell’s consumption is concerned, I do not accept his evidence that he only consumed 2 1/2 beers at the pub.  Rather, I find as a fact that each of the co-workers bought at least one round of drinks for the other members of the group (and possibly more) and that Rockwell himself bought at least two rounds that included beer (for himself and Sauve), vodka (for Sahanovitch) and Fireball whiskey shooters (for all).  I find as a fact that by the time he left the pub to retrieve his truck, Rockwell had consumed at least five to six drinks, a combination of beer and liquor, and that he was significantly intoxicated by alcohol.  I also have no doubt, and I find as a fact, that the influence of alcohol on Rockwell was exacerbated by both a lack of food in the preceding 12 to 15 hours (and probably longer), and a high level of fatigue caused by extremely long work hours and inadequate sleep over an extended period of time.  His ability to drive safely was significantly impaired when he left the pub.

[59]         I recognize another possible theory of Rockwell’s intoxication is that he drank only two to three beers at the pub and in the two-hour period thereafter, he consumed substantial quantities of beer and/or liquor, whether at home or elsewhere, before the accident occurred.  While it certainly appears that Sahanovitch was an aggressive and irresponsible drinker of a sort who might engage in such behaviour, there is no evidence to support such a characterization of Rockwell.  When one subtracts the amount of time that it would have taken for Rockwell to drive home, this theory would require him to have consumed an enormous amount of alcohol in less than an hour, a proposition which is not consistent with his previous conduct and which, assessed from the perspective of robust logic and common sense, amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking and unfounded speculation on the part of Cambie Malone’s.

[60]         I am also satisfied however, and find as a fact, that Rockwell did indeed consume further alcohol after he departed the pub.  On the balance of probabilities, I find that this occurred at his residence and included consumption of vodka or other liquor in quantities more than Rockwell claims in his evidence.

[61]         It is not necessary to ascribe a precise figure to the amount of alcohol that Rockwell consumed after he left the pub.  It is sufficient to find that he was significantly intoxicated when he left the pub and that he became even more severely intoxicated through the consumption of additional alcohol before the accident happened…

[73]         In this particular case the affidavits from the pub employees all referred to the employees having successfully completed the “Serving It Right”, which is British Columbia’s mandatory “Responsible Beverage Service Program”.  This is a program sponsored by the provincial government and the hospitality industry which offers information about intoxication, as well as guidelines and suggestions for, as the tagline suggests, “responsible beverage service”.  Rather cleverly, none of the employee affidavits expressly disclosed the information and conduct guidelines suggested in the “Serving It Right” program.  Instead, all that was proffered was what was said to be Cambie Malone’s written “Policies and Procedures” which included the following paragraph:

It is your responsibility to ensure patrons do not become intoxicated while in the establishment.  You must refuse entrance and/or service to any person who is apparently under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Moreover, persons visibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol may not be permitted to remain in the establishment.  You must refuse the person service, have the person removed and see that they depart safely.  Intoxicated persons must NOT be permitted to drive.  It is your duty to ensure that a safe ride home is used.  This is a crucial responsibility of everyone in the alcohol service industry.

[74]         While the standard of care expected of a commercial host will, in large part, be governed by the particular circumstances of any given case, there are several general standards of conduct that could well apply simply as a matter of common sense, including:

·       ensure there are adequate supervision, monitoring and training systems in place so employees know and abide by responsible serving practices;

·       ensure there is a sufficient number of serving staff on duty so that effective monitoring of alcohol consumption by patrons is possible;

·       ensure employees know the signs of intoxication and the various factors that influence intoxication (gender, weight, rate of consumption, food, et cetera);

·       inquire if the patron is driving and identify any “designated driver” for groups of patrons;

·       know how to estimate blood-alcohol concentrations and ensure any driver does not consume more than the appropriate number of drinks to stay on the “right side” of the legal limit;

·       display “tent cards” on tables, posters on walls and washrooms, and menu inserts with easy-to-read charts and information about blood-alcohol concentration;

·       ask apparently-intoxicated patrons if you contact anyone to assist them or if you can get them a taxi and, if necessary, offer to pay for it;

·       display posters advertising free ride-home services available in the neighbourhood; and

·       if the patron rejects alternative options and insists on driving, despite being urged otherwise, contact the police to seek assistance and/or provide whatever information might encourage their intervention.

[75]         None of these things occurred in the present case.  Rather, the pub’s employees utterly failed in abiding by their own employer’s directive that “intoxicated persons (e.g., Rockwell) must not be permitted to drive”.  I have no hesitation in concluding that the employees, and therefore Cambie Malone’s, did not meet the requisite standard of care in the circumstances of this particular case and that their conduct was accordingly negligent.

$217,500 in Damages Ordered Following Suckerpunch Assault

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, ordering the payment of $217,500 in total damages after the Plaintiff was injured in an assault/battery.
In today’s case (Rycroft v. Rego) the Plaintiff alleged he was injured in an altercation with the Defendant.  Although the Court heard differing versions of events the Court concluded the Defendant through an “unexpected” punch to the Plaintiff which began a brief physical scuffle.
In finding the Defendant culpable for the assault and the injuries that arose Mr. Justice Williams made the following findings of fact:

[30]         Based on my examination of all of the evidence, my conclusions with respect to what occurred are as follows.

[31]         In order to investigate the reported damage caused to the bike park, shortly after returning home, the plaintiff entered the yard behind his residence. Immediately before the altercation, while Mr. Rycroft was walking at a moderate pace in the general direction of his own home, Mr. Rego, walking quite briskly, approached him.

[32]         I accept that the plaintiff said words to the effect of “you must be the dad; I do not want kids playing there anymore.”

[33]         I find that, at that point, the defendant struck the side of the plaintiff’s head. The version of events which most sensibly and logically explains the resulting bruise is that, when he was struck, Mr. Rycroft had his head turned to the right. The punch was of significant force and unexpected.

[34]         As a consequence of the blow, the plaintiff went down in a forward direction, ending up on his knees. He had his hands on the ground. The defendant immediately applied some type of headlock to Mr. Rycroft from behind.

[35]         The two men struggled, with Mr. Rego behind and above Mr. Rycroft. No significant blows were landed.

[36]         The physical engagement ended fairly quickly. The defendant let go of the plaintiff and moved away, and the plaintiff got to his feet.

[37]         The defendant said something to the effect of “do you want round two?” or “do you want some more?” The plaintiff responded in the affirmative, I expect probably more reflexively than seriously, but did nothing physically to further engage with the defendant. Instead, the plaintiff reached into his pocket, took out his phone, and called 911.

[38]         At that point, the defendant and his wife left and went home.

[39]         In the course of the altercation, the plaintiff sustained an injury to his left temple area, an injury which is depicted in the photo marked Exhibit 6. I find that bruise was caused by a blow from the defendant.

[40]         It is also reasonable to conclude that Mr. Rycroft sustained minor injuries to his arm, his elbow area, and his hand, likely from going to the ground.

[41]         Finally, I accept that the plaintiff incurred some injury to his knees, also resulting from going to the ground.

Limitation Period Not Postponed Where "Injuries Prove to be More Severe Than Initially Believed"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Today the BC Court of Appeal published reasons for judgement upholding the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim that was brought out of time.
In today’s case (Bell v. Wigmore) the Defendant “ performed a syringing procedure, irrigating and flushing” the Plaintiff’s ear.  The Plaintiff alleged this was done negligently and as a result the Plaintiff went on to suffer from long term dysfunction.   The Plaintiff started the lawsuit almost 6 years after the incident when the applicable limitation period was two years.
The case was dismissed at trial and the Plaintiff appealed arguing the limitation period should have been postponed because in the initial period “he had every reason to believe that his injuries were transient and relatively minor”.
The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding there was no good reason to postpone the running of the limitation period.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following legal summary:

23]        The mere fact that injuries prove to be more severe than initially believed will not serve to postpone the running of the limitation period: Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; Craig v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 275. On the other hand, where it can be shown that the injuries were not, initially, sufficiently serious that a reasonable person would seek advice concerning a lawsuit, the running of the limitation period may be postponed to a time when the seriousness of the injuries became evident.

[24]        In Brooks v. Jackson, the plaintiff experienced a hemorrhage following the birth of her child. She was advised that “she should expect to be unwell for approximately two years, the length of time it would take to get her blood back and recover from the delivery.” Some four years later, she was diagnosed with Sheehan’s Syndrome, and soon after determined that the syndrome could have been brought on by the hemorrhage.

[25]        This Court found that the limitation period did not start to run until the plaintiff was diagnosed with Sheehan’s Syndrome:

[32]        In my opinion, a reasonable person in the position of Ms. Brooks would not have sought legal advice or further medical advice prior to the diagnosis of Sheehan’s Syndrome. She was advised in January 1998 she had no physical sequela from the delivery and she was satisfied with the answers Dr. Jackson gave to her questions. A reasonable person, in those circumstances, would not seek legal advice to determine whether there was a cause of action against Dr. Jackson. Ms. Brooks had no reason to believe that the temporary loss of blood had caused a permanent injury of a qualitatively different nature. It is my view that a reasonable person would not have sought legal advice until realizing the damage was more than transient in nature. Accordingly, the running of time in the limitation period was postponed until Ms. Brooks was diagnosed with Sheehan’s Syndrome, and the limitation period had not expired prior to the commencement of the action.

[26]        Brooks does not stand for the proposition that the running of a limitation period is postponed whenever a plaintiff has reason to believe that a condition will eventually subside. The question of whether a reasonable person would seek further advice turns on a number of factors. A court must consider the apparent severity of the injury and the duration and magnitude of its impact on the plaintiff’s lifestyle. A court will also consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff had good reason to suspect that someone was at fault in causing their injuries.

[27]        In Brooks, legal and medical advice, if taken early on, might have led the plaintiff to understand that she had a reasonable cause of action. It would not, however, have been reasonable for her to take such advice, as she was unaware that she had suffered serious harm, and had little reason to suspect that the harm she had suffered was a result of negligence.

Lack of Timely Notice Derails ICBC Unidentified Motorist Lawsuit

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing a wrongful death allegation seeking damages from ICBC on behalf of an unidentified motorist.
In today’s case (Parmar Estate v. British Columbia) the Plaintiff estate sued numerous defendants alleging they were at fault for a fatal collision.  ICBC was named as a nominal defendant on the allegation that an unidentified motorist was responsible for the collision.  ICBC succeeded in having the claim against them dismissed for failure of the Plaintiff giving them notice of the allegation within 6 months of the collision.  In dismissing the claim against ICBC Madam Justice Gropper provided the following reasons:

[15]         I do not accept the plaintiffs’ interpretation of s. 24 of the Act. Their reliance on the Jamt decision is misplaced, particularly, as noted in that decision, ICBC was named as a nominal defendant at the commencement of this action.

[16]         Here, it is clear that ICBC did not receive notice of the allegations against an unknown driver within six months of the accident. The notice of civil claim can serve as notice to ICBC under s. 24(2). Even so, the notice of civil claim was not filed until two years after the accident and was not served until three years after the accident.

[17]         The plaintiffs provide no explanation for the lack of notice or for the failure to serve the notice of claim for a year following its filing. As noted in the chronology, the accident was not reported to ICBC until March or April 2014. There is no basis upon which I can conclude that the notice was given to ICBC “as soon as reasonably practicable”. The lack of notice is fatal to the plaintiffs’ claim.

[18]         I am satisfied that the action against ICBC raises no genuine triable issue and must be dismissed.

Lost Trial Date Due To Lack of Trial Briefs Not Saved By Late Filing

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

Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating that filing a late trial brief is no remedy once a trial date is lost due to lack of compliance with the Rules of Court.
In today’s case (Carleton v. North Island Brewing Corporation) the parties were scheduled for trial and apparently by consent agreed to file trial briefs “outside the times prescribed by the Rules.“.
The Court did not grant the request for lack of sufficient evidence supporting it and struck the trial date.  The parties hoped late briefs would salvage the trial date but the Court declined.  In doing so Mr. Justice Smith provided the following reasons:

[2]            Rule 12-2(1) requires a trial management conference to be held at least 28 days before trial. The plaintiff must file a trial brief at least 28 days before the date of the trial management conference (R. 12-2(2)) and other parties must file their trial briefs at least 21 days before the trial management conference (R. 12-2(3.1)). If no trial briefs are filed as required, the matter is removed from the trial list (Rule 12-2 (3.3).

[3]            These Rules are intended in part to assist the court in determining what cases are ready for trial, which in turn assists the court in the allocation of scarce judicial resources. They are not Rules that counsel and parties may opt out of at their convenience. At the very least, any application to extend the time for filing of a trial brief must be accompanied by a reasonable explanation as to why it was not filed in time as well as a proposed new date by which it will be filed.

[4]            In this case, neither party filed a trial brief and counsel simply submitted a draft consent order that “trial briefs of the plaintiff and defendant be filed outside the times prescribed” by the Rules. There was no explanation of why no one had filed a trial brief and no suggestion of when briefs would be filed. The absence of that material was in itself sufficient grounds to deny the application, but a subsequent review of the court record indicated that the matter had already been struck from the trial list.

[5]            The trial management conference had been set for February 16, 2017 and the requisition seeking a consent order for late filing was not submitted until January 30. In other words, the parties were seeking to file trial briefs after the date on which the Rules required the case to be struck from the trial list.

[6]            Rule 12-2 (3.3) reads

(3.3) Unless the court otherwise orders, a trial must be removed from the trial list if no trial brief has been filed under subrule (3) or (3.1).

[7]            Therefore, where a matter is struck from the trial list pursuant to that Rule, it cannot be restored simply by late filing of trial briefs, even if the court permits late filing. At least one party must make a proper application to restore the trial to the list. The question of late filing of trial briefs will only become relevant if that application is successful. Whether such an application is successful will depend on the circumstances, but I expect that in most cases applicants will be required to show both a reasonable excuse for the failure to file trial briefs and some serious prejudice if the trial does not go ahead.

Why Tostitos "Breathalyzer" Chip Bag Will Likely Get Them Sued

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


(Image via adweek)
The Super Bowl is right around the corner and like many other company’s Tostitos is hoping to cash in.
Their angle?  A chip bag that doubles as a breathalyzer.  As reported by Time,
“The limited-edition “Party Safe” bag is meant to discourage drinking and driving, and will even provide those with a trace of alcohol on their breath with a $10 Uber code on the day of the big game. The company promises it comes equipped with an alcohol sensor that, when breathed into, will turn red if alcohol is detected and green if it’s not.”
Let me break down, as simply as possible, as to why a lawsuit is all but assured

  • They have created a gimmick intended to sell product
  • the gimmick is targeted to those who have been drinking and are considering driving
  • The gimmick will give a literal ‘green light’ to drive
  • The chip bag technology, I assume, will not be foolproof
  • A drunk will drive relying on the bag
  • Some misfortune will, in all likelihood, arise

This is a terrible idea.  To quote the the Lawrence Police on Twitter
Lawrence Police on Twitter

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Permanent Worsening" of a Chronic Pain Condition

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for the worsening of a pre-existing chronic pain condition.
In the recent case (Deol v. Sheikh) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2012 rear-end collision that the Defendant was found responsible for.  Prior to this the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision which left her with chronic pain symptoms.  The Court found the latter collision permanently worsened these symptoms and assessed non-pecuniary damages at $70,000.  In reaching this assessment Madam Justice Griffin provided the following reasons:

[154]     Here, the Plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries and chronic pain as a result of the 2006 Accident; she also suffered from soft tissue injuries and an exacerbation of chronic pain symptoms after the 2012 Accident.

[155]     I find that the analysis in Schnurr is most applicable to Ms. Deol’s position. There is an abundance of evidence establishing that the Plaintiff had developed a chronic pain condition as a result of the 2006 Accident and that six years later it was continuing but relatively stable with the possibility of flare-ups just before the 2012 Accident. We therefore know the original position she would have been in, had the 2012 Accident not occurred.

[156]     It is important to note that the 2012 Accident did not tip the scales from one condition to another. It was not the cumulative effect of the 2012 Accident and the 2006 Accident that caused Ms. Deol to develop a chronic pain condition. Rather, she had this serious condition before the 2012 Accident.

[157]     The language in Ashcroft refers to the negligence of both the settling defendant and the respondent tortfeasor as being “necessary causes” of the injury. Again, the 2012 Accident did not cause the chronic pain condition. That condition pre-existed and was going to continue regardless of the 2012 Accident.

[158]     The evidence in this case makes it possible to consider the position that Ms. Deol was in before the 2012 Accident, and to compare her post-2012 Accident to that position, and to assess damages based on a change in her position.

[159]     I find that Ms. Deol’s injuries sustained in the 2012 Accident are divisible from the injuries sustained in the 2006 Accident.

[160]     I have found that the 2012 Accident caused a permanent worsening of Ms. Deol’s chronic pain condition, increasing her sensitivity to pain. Initially this increased pain was more significant in the approximately two years following the 2012 Accident before she was able to return to work in March 2014. It has since become more manageable but I find she has a greater propensity to suffer symptoms of her chronic pain condition in the future, as compared to the position she would have been in absent the 2012 Accident.

[161]     The Plaintiff is entitled to damages to compensate her for the injuries sustained in the 2012 Accident, to try to put her in the place she would have been in but for the 2012 Accident, but not to put her in a better place than she would have been had the 2012 Accident not occurred…

[211]     I found none of the authorities particularly helpful on the facts, where here, the Plaintiff is young, she suffered a serious loss of enjoyment of life for two years, and will likely suffer some loss of enjoyment of life in the future, incremental to the loss of enjoyment that would otherwise be caused by her chronic pain condition. I find an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages to be $70,000.

Court Rejects "Particularly Problematic" ICBC Expert Witness

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archived case summaries addressing advocacy by expert witnesses, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, soundly criticizing an expert witness for a lack of objectivity.
In today’s case (La Porte v. Earl) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 collision that the Defendant admitted fault for.   She suffered physical and psychiatrist injuries as a result of the crash.  In the course of the crash the Defendant’s insurer sent her to a psychiatrist who marginalized any psychiatric injuries she had and their connection to the collision.
In rejecting this opinion Mr. Justice Sewell provided the following reasons:

[74]         After careful consideration I have concluded that I can give no weight to Dr. Levin’s report. There are a number of reasons why I have reached this conclusion. I begin by saying that I found that Dr. Levin’s report lacked objectivity. It seemed to me that Dr. Levin was marshalling evidence in favour of his conclusion, rather than attempting to communicate constructively with Ms. La Porte to determine her actual mental state.

[75]         Dr. Levin developed a number of themes that he repeated throughout his report. One such theme was to emphasize how resilient Ms. La Porte had been before the Accident, and to extrapolate that resilience into her reaction to the pain and anxiety that she experienced after the Accident.

[76]         At the outset of his opinion, Dr. Levin referred to Ms. La Porte’s pre-accident condition and began by emphasizing that Ms. La Porte did not present with any biological or psychological vulnerabilities that would have predisposed her to the development of any psychiatric illness.

[77]         In his report, Dr. Levin does not address the important question of the interrelationship of pain and anxiety. In fact, Dr. Levin mentioned Ms. La Porte’s reported pain only in passing. In addition, Dr. Levin does not appear to have elicited any details about what actually occurred on Ms. La Porte’s last day of work. The impression he portrays is that Ms. La Porte was managing her job without any difficulty up to the time she stopped working, and stopped working only in anticipation of having an increased workload in the fall of the year. The portion of his report dealing with this question at page 5 states as follows:

Ms. La Porte indicated that she went on a medical leave in anticipation (not yet experienced) of having an increased workload in the fall of this year that could affect her physical problems. Ms. La Porte stated that she would be upset when her dispatcher would give her a passenger with a heavy wheelchair or walker. Ms. La Porte, however, did not report an actual worsening of her reported pain or physical problems that could cause her any emotional suffering. In fact, while off work Ms. La Porte reportedly improved and was able to relax at home, at times baby-sitting her grandchildren. While discussing her current activities of daily living Ms. La Porte did not report any ongoing psychological or emotional disturbances of clinical significance that would affect her ability to return to her previous workplace or any other employment for which she is suited by her education and experience. When asked about her mood while baby-sitting for her grandchildren she said, “It’s good but I get tired faster…”. [Underline emphasis added.]

[78]         The foregoing summary is at marked variance to Ms. La Porte’s evidence in court that she struggled with the heavier physical demands of her job and the physical exertions of her job significantly worsened her pain. In addition, given Ms. La Porte’s evidence in court, which I have accepted, about the circumstances of her last day of work, I can only conclude that Dr. Levin did not inquire about those circumstances.

[79]         There were two portions of Dr. Levin’s evidence that I found particularly problematic. The first relates to this sentence at page 5 of the report: “Ms. La Porte indicated that she went on a medical leave in anticipation (not yet experienced) of having an increased workload in the fall of this year that could affect her physical problems.” When Dr. Levin was asked in cross-examination whether he had italicized the word “could” in this portion of his report to emphasize that there was no actual effect on Ms. La Porte’s physical problems, he denied that intent and stated that the italics were a clerical error. I find this answer to be lacking in credibility. In the context of the rest of that portion of his report, it is obvious that Dr. Levin was emphasizing that Ms. La Porte had not yet experienced any difficulty in coping with her work at the time she stopped working.

[80]         In addition, Dr. Levin implies in this passage that Ms. La Porte had not reported any effect that her job had on her physical problems. It is unclear whether he is suggesting she denied any negative effects or whether he based this statement on Ms. La Porte not volunteering any such information. If she told him that her job had no negative effects on her physical problems, it would have been contrary to what she told the other doctors who examined and treated her, as well as to her evidence before me, which I have accepted as credible. I therefore think it is highly unlikely that she denied any negative effects. I note that Dr. Levin did not indicate that he asked any questions about this subject in his interview of Ms. La Porte.

[81]         The second troubling evidence from Dr. Levin is found in his second report dated June 9, 2014. In that report Dr. Levin comments on the reports of the other physicians that have been put in evidence. At page 5, Dr. Levin begins his comments on Dr. Oluyede’s consultation report of November 15, 2012, which he describes as a “clinical record”. He purports to paraphrase a part of Dr. Oluyede’s report commenting on Ms. La Porte’s mood as follows at page 5:

The clinical records dated November 15, 2012, state, “[…] she describes being in a state of shock…three days later, she noticed an increasing pain…following this, she has had subsequent issues with pain…presently, she is going through legal proceedings to get some compensation…”

[82]         Dr. Levin goes on to comment on this passage from Dr. Oluyede’s report, concluding with the following sentence at page 6:

It seems one of the major issues identified in Ms. La Porte’s case is reportedly, “Legal proceedings to get some compensation as she was the injured party…” However, Dr. Oluyede does not discuss any specific psychiatric or psychological injury sustained in the subject MVA that would require any compensation.

[83]         What Dr. Oluyede actually said in her consultation report at page 1 is as follows:

Three days later she noticed an increasing pain in her right leg and her right arm. She described the pain as spasmodic. On the day of the accident she was seen in emergency and had been medically cleared.

Following this she has had subsequent issues with pain and has seen a chiropractor for a while. Both car insurance companies have been involved and her car has been fixed. She took four days off of work at that time.

Presently she is going through legal proceedings to get some compensation as she was the injured party and has been incapacitated since the accident.

She describes not feeling good most of the time, feeling easily stressed out and overwhelmed. She has had to cut down her hours of work from forty hours previously per week to thirty-five hours.

She has noticed a continuous decline in both her physical and mental health. With regards to her mental health she describes easy fatigability, worry and anxiety about her future and with regards to finances. She describes feeling drained most of the time and has noticed that on certain occasions she does have what she describes as overwhelming anxiety.

[84]         In my view, Dr. Levin did not accurately or fairly paraphrase Dr. Oluyede’s consultation report. Even more problematically, when Dr. Levin was cross-examined on the above passage from his report, he again said this was either a typographical error or he misspoke himself in his dictation and meant to say “assistance” not compensation. Again, given the context of the passage, in which Dr. Levin seems to be at pains to show that Ms. La Porte is seeking compensation, I cannot accept this explanation from him.

[85]         In addition, I found Dr. Levin to be argumentative and somewhat non-responsive in the answers he gave in cross-examination. Finally, I am concerned that Dr. Levin had some animus towards Ms. La Porte. At the outset of his notes on his interview with Ms. La Porte he recorded that he felt she was being unreasonable and uncooperative with him. None of the other doctors who conducted independent medical examinations at the request of the defendants made any such comment.

[86]         I therefore give no weight to Dr. Levin’s opinion in this matter.