Skip to main content

"Outlandish" Uncorroborated Injury Claims Rejected

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, largely rejecting many “outlandish” claims in a personal injury lawsuit that were not supported by medical evidence.
In today’s case (Lamb v. Fullerton) the Plaintiff was involved in several collisions and sued for damages.  He claimed aggravation of a historic head injury and further claimed severe consequences including ‘vomiting 100 times in a day‘ and severe bowel incontinence.  The reported symptoms and any relationship to the collisions in question were not corroborated by medical evidence.  The court was critical both of the lack of evidence in support of the claim and the Plaintiff’s credibility.  In rejecting these and other portions of the claim Madam Justice Warren provided the following reasons:
9]             Mr. Lamb’s testimony was unsatisfactory.  Regrettably, I have concluded that it is almost wholly unreliable in establishing that any injury or aggravation of injury was caused by these accidents, particularly in the complex circumstances of a serious, ongoing pre-existing condition and two intervening accidents that are not the subject of this action.
[10]         Mr. Lamb unreasonably persisted in making claims that were inconsistent with either independent evidence or other aspects of his own evidence, and he made little, if any, attempt to explain the inconsistencies.  Two particularly striking examples were his insistence that his behavioural and memory problems were aggravated by the accidents in question and his repeated assertion that he broke his clavicle in the December 8, 2010 accident…

[14]         Mr. Lamb also baldly advanced claims, some of which were out of the ordinary and even outlandish, without corroborating evidence in circumstances where one would expect corroborating evidence to exist.

[15]         Mr. Lamb claimed to have been vomiting 100 times in a day.  He claimed that the bowel incontinence was so severe that he was using countless incontinence pads and 20 gallons of isopropanol annually to clean his soiled clothing.  He offered his own opinion as to the cause of these conditions, which was blood accumulating in his stomach as a result of bleeding from his esophagus caused by wincing and cringing due to the pain.  Yet, he appears to have taken few, if any, steps to obtain medical attention for these conditions; he offered no medical evidence to support his own dubious opinion as to the cause of these conditions; and he produced not even a single receipt for isopropanol or incontinence pads…

[20]         Mr. Lamb acknowledged having been untruthful in other contexts.  He admitted that he told a surgeon who performed his cataract surgery in June 2012 that he had undergone chemotherapy for leukemia but he seemed to reluctantly acknowledge during the trial that he has never had leukemia…

[85]         As I have already explained, because Mr. Lamb’s subjective reports provide the foundation of his claims it is particularly important to examine his evidence carefully.  For the reasons already expressed, I have concluded that his evidence was neither credible nor reliable.  He has failed to marshal any persuasive independent corroborating evidence.  Most importantly, he has presented no medical evidence in respect of the cause of the injuries and conditions he claims to suffer from; whether his pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accidents; if so, the extent of the aggravation; or the impact of the two intervening accidents on his current condition.  In the circumstances of this case, such evidence is necessary in order to establish possible causes of the injuries and conditions about which he complains:  Deo v. Wong, 2008 BCCA 110 at para. 19.

Plaintiff "Antics" During Cross Examination Undermine Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, rejecting substantial aspects of a personal injury claim due in part to concerns about plaintiff credibility.
In today’s  case (Siddall v. Bencherif) the Plaintiff was injured in 2 separate collisions that the Defendants accepted fault for.  Much of her claim was rejected at trial where the presiding judge raised concerns about her credibility and “antics” while testifying.  In concluding that “the plaintiff was not a particularly credible or reliable witness regarding the effect that the Collisions had on her” Mr. Justice G.C. Weatherill provided the following reasons:
[183]     A plaintiff who accurately describes his or her symptoms and circumstances before and after the collision without minimizing or embellishing them can reasonably anticipate that the court will find his or her evidence to have been credible and reliable. 
[184]     Regrettably, that did not occur in this case.   The plaintiff was not particularly forthcoming during her evidence-in-chief.  Significant aspects of her story were not revealed until cross-examination at which point she was evasive and took great pains to minimize the history of her pre-Collisions physical and emotional issues.  Despite insisting that her memory was “good”, on several occasions she had to be taken to her relatively recent examination for discovery transcripts before she was prepared to recall her previous evidence.  She had difficulty agreeing that her income tax returns reflected her actual income because she could not remember whether she had worked more than what they reflected.  Although the details of her many pre-Collisions psychological and psychiatric issues were set out in voluminous historical clinical records, including the answers to questionnaires in the plaintiff’s own handwriting, she was either unable to recall, or unwilling to admit to them.  She was also unable to recall significant portions of the clinical history set out in the various expert reports filed in this action that had been provided by the plaintiff herself. 
[185]     When clinical records or other documents were put to the plaintiff that contradicted her evidence, she insisted that the documents were likely in error or that she had been misinterpreted or misunderstood. 
[186]     The poor quality of the plaintiff’s memory at times when it suited her is at odds with her obvious high level of intelligence.
[187]     During her cross-examination, the plaintiff became increasingly evasive, argumentative and adversarial.  She often launched into lengthy, rambling answers that were replete with speculation and devoid of factual foundation.  She repeatedly played down her pre-Collisions symptoms as minor and inconsequential and emphasized her post-Collisions symptoms as new and debilitating.
[188]     Although the plaintiff appeared to have no difficulty reviewing documents and answering questions during her direct examination, she requested a recess early in her cross-examination, complaining of having difficulty extending her arms to read a one page document due to pain in her arms and shoulders.  However, she did not indicate any further difficulty with her arms during the remainder of her lengthy cross-examination, interrupted as it was by other witnesses over four days.  Indeed, throughout her cross-examination she frequently used her arms to gesture during her answers, as people typically do when attempting to make a point.  She continually alternated between standing and sitting in the witness box, which is in noticeable contrast to Ms. Tencha’s observations during the Functional Capacity Evaluation that the plaintiff was capable of engaging in casual sitting for 1 hour and 40 minutes.
[189]     The plaintiff’s antics and demeanour during cross-examination, as well as her numerous and vehement attempts to convince the court of her ordeal, evoked the oft-quoted line from Hamlet: “the lady doth protest too much”.
[190]     I find that, overall, the plaintiff was not a particularly credible or reliable witness regarding the effect that the Collisions had on her, which I find she exaggerated.  Unfortunately, I am unable to give her evidence in that regard much weight. 
[191]     As a consequence, I have not found the opinion evidence of the medical experts of much assistance.  That is not because the experts are lacking in the necessary experience and expertise in their respective fields.  Indeed, they are all highly qualified.  Rather, it is because medical experts necessarily take a patient’s complaints at face value and then offer an opinion based on those complaints.  Here too they relied for their respective opinions to a significant degree on what they were told by the plaintiff without the benefit, as the court had, of a thorough and lengthy cross-examination of the plaintiff during which her self-reports and evidence generally were tested.
[192]     In contrast to the plaintiff, ….gave his evidence in a down-to-earth and forthright fashion.  He was clear, candid, animated, articulate and passionate about his testimony.  I find that his evidence was credible and generally reliable.

Court Finds It is an Abuse of Process For ICBC to File Inconsistent Pleadings From Single Collision

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, finding it is an abuse of process for a defendant sued by multiple parties from a single collision to admit liability in one action but deny in the other “where there are no facts to distinguish the two”.
In today’s case (Glover v. Leakey) the Defendant was involved in a crash and injured two passengers.  One sued and fault was admitted and ultimately settlement reached.  The second sued but fault was denied.  In the midst of a jury trial the Plaintiff discovered the inconsistent pleadings and asked for a finding of liability.
Due to a misunderstanding the matter proceeded to verdict and the jury found the Defendant was not negligent.  Before the order was entered the Court considered the matter and found that the liability denial was an abuse of process, stripped the defence and granted liability in favour of the plaintiff.  In reaching this result Madam Justice Gropper provided the following reasons:
[67]         In considering my analysis of this application, I must note that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), the Province’s public mandatory motor vehicle insurer had conduct of both the Glover and the Yeomans actions. The evidence provided is sparse, but it is clear that the adjuster in the Yeomans Action determined that liability would be admitted on behalf of Mr. Leakey whereas the adjuster in the Glover action determined that liability would be denied. I expressly find that ICBC knew of the inconsistent pleadings and that the insured, Kenneth Leakey knew or ought to have known of the inconsistent positions…

[93]         The defendant claims that to find these pleadings as inconsistent and an abuse of process will discourage admissions, contrary to public policy. I find that there is much larger public policy at stake. It is an abuse of process to allow a defendant to admit liability in respect of one passenger and deny liability in respect of the other where there are no facts to distinguish the two. Requiring a party, even ICBC, to file consistent pleadings is not onerous and, with respect, is a principled way to proceed. The pleading of inconsistent positions in this case cannot be condoned.

[94]         I have declared a mistrial in this case. It may appear that my decision on the abuse of process application is moot. It is not for three reasons:

1.               A declaration of mistrial means that the matter will proceed to a new trial.

2.                I grant judgment on the liability issue in favour of the plaintiff.

3.               The plaintiff seeks special costs related to the abuse of process and has asked for leave to provide further submissions in that regard.

[95]         Both parties may seek to appear to address the issue of special costs based on my finding of an abuse of process.

Defense Expert Appointment Dismissed for "Waiting at their Peril"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Unpublished reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing a defence application for an independent medical assessment for being brought too late in the process.
In the recent case (Bains v. Antle) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.  The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to attend a 2 day Functional Capacity Assessment less than 84 days before trial.  The Plaintiff refused and a court application to compel attendance was brought.  Master Harper dismissed the application finding the Defendant was too late and waited at their peril.  In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:
Quote late DME dismissal

ICBC's "Two Hats" Derails Litigation Privilege Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, ordering ICBC to produce and investigative report and video.
In today’s case (Oates v. Burton) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.   After being represented by a lawyer the Plaintiff applied for disability benefits from ICBC and shortly after ICBC ordered surveillance.
The Plaintiff, in the context of the injury lawsuit, sought production of the surveillance and the investigator’s report but ICBC refused to produce this arguing it was privileged being created for the dominant purpose of use in the (at the time contemplated) injury lawsuit.  Mr. Justice Voith disagreed finding the report was likely created for dual purposes including investigating the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits.  In ordering production the Court provided the following reasons:

]         This case turns, as is generally the case, on the second or more “challenging” question; Raj at para. 12. That “challenging” question is whether Item 4.3 was generated for the dominant purpose of use in litigation.

[24]         I return to the narrow and focused chronology that I emphasized earlier. On August 23, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel, more than ten months after he had first advised the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that he had been retained, sought an extension of the plaintiff’s temporary total disability (“TTD”) or Part 7 benefits. On September 5, 2013, or less than two weeks later, Item 4.3 was created. Almost immediately thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel was contacted and the plaintiff’s TTD benefits were extended. Approximately nine months later, the plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Claim was filed.

[25]         The plaintiff argues that at least one purpose that underlay the creation of Item 4.3 was the defendants’ desire to investigate or assess the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim. Furthermore, and importantly, the plaintiff argues that it was necessary for the defendant to expressly address the relationship between the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim and the creation of Item 4.3…

[31]         I do not say that a deponent, who prepares an affidavit that is intended to support a claim for litigation privilege, must address and negate all other potential or notional purposes, however remote, for which that document might have been prepared. In this case, however, the prospect or likelihood that Item 4.3 was created to address, at least in significant measure, the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim is not fanciful or speculative. The preparation of Item 4.3 is bracketed, on the one side, by the ten months from when the defendants learned that the plaintiff had retained counsel and by eight months, on the other side, by when the Notice of Civil Claim was ultimately filed.

[32]         Conversely, Item 4.3 was prepared almost immediately on the heels of the defendants learning that the plaintiff was seeking an extension of her TTD benefits. In such circumstances, I do consider that there was a positive obligation on the part of the defendants’ deponent, the adjuster who oversaw the matter, to expressly and directly address the relationship of Item 4.3 and the plaintiff’s claim for TTD benefits, and the extent to which that claim gave rise to the creation of Item 4.3. That failure, in these circumstances, undermines the defendant’s affidavit evidence, calls into question the dominant purpose for the creation of Item 4.3, and is fatal to the defendants’ claim for litigation privilege over Item 4.3.

[33]         This conclusion is reinforced by the affidavit evidence of the adjuster on this central issue – evidence that the Master in the Reasons accurately described as “not particularly persuasive”. Specifically, the adjuster in her affidavit said:

… By the summer of 2013, the medical information seemed to indicate substantial recovery but with some partial disability. To get a better understanding of her function, I hired a private investigator to review the Plaintiff’s level of activity. My intention on retaining the investigator was to use the results of the investigation to hopefully assist with the defence of the claim and to assist counsel to prepare for litigation not yet commenced but reasonably anticipated.

[34]         Accordingly I allow the plaintiff’s appeal, and I order that Item 4.3 be produced to the plaintiff within seven days of these reasons being released. The plaintiff is to have the costs of both this appeal and of her earlier application.

ICBC's "Casual Disregard" of Court Order Results in Steep Costs Punishment

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, hitting ICBC with a steep costs award for the “casual disregard” of a Court disclosure order.
In today’s case (Norris v. Burgess) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2010 collision and sued for damages.  Prior to trial ICBC offered to settle the claim for $678,500.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and proceeded to trial where a jury awarded $462,374.  After statutory Part 7 deductions the amount was reduced by $70,196.
Normally where a Plaintiff is awarded less than a defence formal settlement offer they are stripped of some of their costs and sometimes ordered to pay some of the Defendant’s costs.  ICBC sought such a result but the Court refused.  Mr. Justice Funt instead ordered that ICBC pay the Plaintiff an additional $155,340.86 in ‘special costs’ because the insurer disregarded a Court order to produce surveillance evidence.  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Funt provided the following reasons:
[65] As noted, at the October 20, 2015 trial management conference, Justice Koenigsberg ordered the listing and description of any surveillance or video to occur on or before October 23, 2015. The existence of the 2015 Video was not disclosed until the start of the fourth week of trial and was, as Mr. Miller stated, harmful to the defence.
[66] ICBC is a public insurance company and an agent of our provincial government. It is a sophisticated litigant which assumes conduct of trials on behalf of many insureds in our province.
[67] A simple “pilot check” by ICBC, possibly in the form of an email or call to Mr. Levy, a review of its paid surveillance video invoices, or a review of its file notes, would have revealed the existence of the 2015 Video. The Court finds that ICBC showed a casual disregard for the October 20, 2015 Court Order; an order designed to ensure that the scheduled jury trial was heard without surprises or ambush.
[68] Mr. Miller stated that an ICBC adjuster often handles a large number of files and that this may explain the late disclosure of the 2015 Video. If ICBC adjusters are overworked and therefore prone to make mistakes, then it was incumbent on ICBC, on being told by its counsel of the October 20, 2015 Court Order, to ensure that a mistake had not been made.
[69] The late disclosure affected the efficient administration of justice. It required plaintiff’s counsel to consider the plaintiff’s options, and likely discuss and receive instructions on a significant matter just as the plaintiff’s case was about to close, rather than be focused on the conduct of the plaintiff’s case..

[75]         When a jury trial is disrupted and affected by the actions of a party, the court’s rebuke or reproof is more likely warranted.

[76]         The reputation of the court was also affected. Especially with a jury trial, a reasonable member of the public would have questioned the efficient workings of the trial and, more generally, the efficient administration of justice. He or she would question the significance and respect ICBC gives a court order designed to avoid surprise and trial unfairness.

[77]         Finally, the video surveillance for all three years was central to the trial generally. Of course, the actual weight given to this evidence remains in the jury room, as it properly must.

[78]         In sum, ICBC’s casual disregard for the disclosure rules, especially when reinforced by the October 20, 2015 Court Order, warrants rebuke in the form of an award of special costs.

 
 

$6 Million Damage Assessment After Teen Injured By Corroded Lamppost

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for profound injuries after a plaintiff fell two stories after falling while swinging from a corroded lamp-post.
In this week’s case (Mackey v. British Columbia) the Court summarized the facts as follows
On March 31, 2007, when David Mackey was 17, he climbed onto a concrete baluster.  The baluster formed part of a railing along the perimeter of a pedestrian plaza at 812 Wharf Street, overlooking the waterfront, in Victoria.  On the baluster stood a lamp post.  It was about 6 feet tall.  David Mackey swung around the lamp post.  It was corroded to the core.  When David Mackey swung around it, the lamp post came loose.  It tottered, and he fell two storeys onto the concrete walkway below.  He suffered severe traumatic brain injury.
The Court found the injury caused profound disability and awarded damages assessing a lifetime of earnings and care totaling nearly $6 million.
The court reduced this amount by 65% to account for the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence.  In finding the Province 35% and the Plaintiff 65% for the incident Mr. Justice MacIntosh reasoned as follows:

[39]         From the evidence above, I reach the following conclusions.

[40]         The lamp post was severely corroded when David Mackey fell.  The lamp post had never been inspected or maintained to see that it was intact.  The annual painting did little or nothing to protect it because the corrosion was allowed to continue unchecked, both under the skirt and immediately above it.  Further, the skirt of the lamp post was never bolted to the baluster, which would have provided the necessary support.

[41]         But for the corroded state of the lamp post, and but for the skirt not having been bolted, I find that the accident probably would not have happened.  What probably happened was that as David Mackey was swinging around the lamp post, the lamp post came loose and gave way.  Probably, the lamp post coming loose and giving way caused David Mackey to fall to the concrete walkway below.  I adopt here what McLachlin C.J. wrote for the majority at paras. 9 and 10 in Clements v. Clements, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181:

[9]        The “but for” causation test must be applied in a robust common sense fashion.  There is no need for scientific evidence of the precise contribution the defendant’s negligence made to the injury.  [Citations omitted.]

[10]      A common sense inference of “but for” causation from proof of negligence usually flows without difficulty.  Evidence connecting the breach of duty to the injury suffered may permit the judge, depending on the circumstances, to infer that the defendant’s negligence probably caused the loss. [Citations omitted.]

[42]         Also, however, it is obvious that but for David Mackey getting up on the baluster, and swinging around the lamp post, the accident would not have happened…

[60]         When applying the provisions of the two statutes, the Occupiers Liability Act and the Negligence Act, as they have been considered in Cempel, Bendzak, Sall andPaquette, cited above, I find the PCC to be 35% at fault and David Mackey to be 65% at fault for the accident.  David Mackey was nearly 18.  He mounted a safe railing where there was a dangerous drop below.  He had probably also heard Ms. Arner’s warning to Ryan Ramsay.  On the other hand, the PCC had neglected entirely the adequate, or indeed any, maintenance of the lamp post, apart from subcontracting an annual paint job.  The lamp post, on top of the railing, was its own accident waiting to happen.  As noted earlier, it could have been pushed over by a force of only 12.5 pounds.

No Forced "Consent" When Attending Court Ordered Medical Examination

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Update January 30, 2017 – the below case, in reasons for judgement released today, was largely overturned on appeal
______________________________________________
Although there are conflicting authorities on the subject in British Columbia, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding it is not appropriate for a Court to order a Plaintiff to sign a ‘consent’ form when attending a court ordered independent medical exam.
In today’s case (Gill v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for personal injuries after a slip and fall incident.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff agreed to be examined by a physician of the Defendant’s choosing but refused to sign a ‘consent’ form the physician required.  The Defendant asked the Court to order the Plaintiff to sign the consent form but the application was dismissed.  In finding judicially ordered ‘consent’ to be inappropriate Master Harper provided the following reasons:

[31]         In my view, because an order compelling an IME is discretionary, I am not bound by Kalaora or Nikolic to order that the plaintiff sign the consent form. I prefer to follow the reasoning of Peel. In addition, although Dr. Travlos and the College have a legitimate interest in ensuring that a person attending for an IME is properly informed about all aspects of the IME, there are alternative methods to compelled consent to convey the information. I conclude that the plaintiff in this case should not be compelled to sign the consent form required by Dr. Travlos.

[32]         Even if I were of the view that Ms. Gill should be compelled to sign a reasonable consent form, Dr. Travlos’s consent form contains clauses that are not reasonable.

i)       First, Ms. Gill should not be expected to have to agree in writing as to the definition of physiatrist: Slobodzian v. Mitchell and Hameiri (unreported, February 2, 2015, Courtenay Supreme Court Action S085376);

ii)     Second, the last paragraph of the consent form contains this statement: “I am signing this document voluntarily …”. Ms. Gill would not be signing the document voluntarily if compelled to do so by court order;

iii)    Third, the consent form says:

I hereby release Dr. Travlos, his employees and agents, from any and all claims whatsoever, which may arise as a result of the release of the above information.

The clause is difficult to interpret. Dr. Travlos might mean that he is released from liability for releasing the report to the referring source. Or, he might mean that he is released from liability for releasing the report to someone other than the referring source. In either case, a release of liability goes beyond the bounds of a reasonable consent form.

[33]         In Mund v. Braun, 2010 BCSC 1714, the IME doctor required the execution of a jurisdiction agreement. The plaintiff declined to sign it and the court declined to order the plaintiff to sign it on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to sign a jurisdiction agreement. The release of liability in Dr. Travlos’s consent form is in the same category and is therefore objectionable.

[34]         Both Dr. Travlos and the College have a legitimate interest in ensuring that persons attending IMEs understand the nature and purpose of the IME. Clarity is always better than confusion.

[35]         The options presented on this application were limited to the court ordering the consent form be signed, or not. In my view, there are other options. The desired outcome of a party attending an IME fully informed about the IME could be met if the court were asked to incorporate reasonable terms into the order granting the IME. Those terms would meet the reasonable and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, the defendant, the examining doctor and the College.

[36]         Of course, the terms would have to be acceptable to the doctor or the exercise is meaningless. A drawback to this option is the unnecessary increase in court applications. Both Dr. Travlos and the doctor in Kalaora said that most people seeing them for IMEs consent. It would not be proportionate to require all applications for IMEs to result in a court order.

[37]         The concerns about “improved communication by physicians” and “enhanced understanding by patients” expressed in the guideline could also be met by the doctor providing written information about the IME to the party in advance of the examination. This option would be simpler and less expensive than a court order incorporating the information the doctor seeks to convey to the person being examined.

[38]         An even better option might be for the College to amend its guideline to provide recommendations for physicians conducting IMEs that are court-ordered and not by consent. 

$80,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Permanent, Partially Disabling Shoulder Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Shoulder Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archives of pain and suffering awards for shoulder injuries, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 for a permanent, partially disabling, shoulder injury.
In today’s case (Mocharski v. Ngo) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2011 collision that the Defendant motorist was found fully at fault for.  The Plaintiff suffered a left shoulder injury which, despite surgical intervention, remained problematic and resulted in a permanent partial disability.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 Mr. Justice Abrioux made the following findings:

[105]     When I apply the principles to which I have referred to the evidence in this case, I make the following findings of fact and reach certain conclusions. As a result of the Accident, the plaintiff sustained the following injuries:

(a) a left shoulder glenohumeral Iabral tear and acromioclavicular joint pain,

(b) left shoulder impingement syndrome,

(c) myofascial pain syndrome affecting the neck,

(d) cervicogenic headaches,

(e) myofascial pain syndrome affecting the back.

[106]     I also find that:

(a) the plaintiff sustained moderately severe soft tissue injuries in the Accident as well as an injury to the left shoulder that ultimately required surgical intervention;

(b) he is left with a permanent partial disability to his left shoulder and will continue to suffer from that condition;

(c) while the symptoms arising from the non-shoulder injuries have lessened considerably over time, the plaintiff was essentially totally incapacitated from a physical perspective for a period of approximately one year due to the injuries sustained in the Accident. These symptoms have and will continue to provide him with occasional discomfort in the future depending on the activities he performs…

[115]     Each case turns on its own facts. Taking into account the Stapley v. Hejslet factors, I award the plaintiff $80,000 under this head of damages.

Defendant Ordered to Pay $7,500 After "Body-Checking" Plaintiff During Debt Collection

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, ordering a Defendant to pay a Plaintiff $5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and a further $2,500 in punitive damages following an assault during a debt collection.
In today’s case (Ross v. Dhillon) the Plaintiff attended the Defendant’s business to collect an outstanding business account with respect to some industrial equipment purchased by the Defendant.  The Defendant made partial payment and the Plaintiff,  unsatisfied with this, removed a part from the equipment.  As he attempted to leave the Defendant “body‑checked him into the door frame and held him against it for several seconds.”.
The Court found this incident caused a minor aggravation of pre-existing injuries the Plaintiff suffered in a collision.  In assessing damages at $7,500 Mr. Justice Smith provided the following reasons:
[20]         I therefore find that the plaintiff experienced a minor and short‑lived aggravation of his neck and back symptoms, accompanied by an equally minor and short‑lived condition that produced some numbness in his hand…

[23]         Considering the minor nature of the plaintiff’s injuries, including the brief aggravation of his previous symptoms and including a component for aggravated damages, I award the plaintiff non‑pecuniary damages of $5,000.

[24]         I also find this to be an appropriate case for punitive damages. The defendant’s conduct was willful, reckless and dangerous. While his conduct was at the low end of any scale that would measure violent conduct, no amount of violence was an acceptable response to this dispute about a relatively small debt.

[25]         In Van Hartevelt v. Grewal, 2012 BCSC 658, the court awarded $10,000 in punitive damages to a plaintiff who was beaten about the head and kicked in the ribs. The violence in this case was much less severe, and I award punitive damages of $2,500.