Skip to main content

Costs Threats Against Expert Witnesses An Abuse of Process

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 65 Comments on Costs Threats Against Expert Witnesses An Abuse of Process

In the first case I have seen addressing this issue, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, striking out language in correspondence between lawyers as an abuse of process.
In today’s case (Walker v. Doe) the Plaintiff objected via letter sent to Defence counsel to the admissibility of Defense expert reports, and as part of the “boilerplate” objections Plaintiff’s counsel noted that “we shall seek sanctions personally against [expert’s name], including but not limited to special costs“.
In finding that the Rules of Court allow a Judge to strike out language in such a letter Mr. Justice Butler reasoned as follows:
[7]             Letters sent by counsel to provide notice of objection to the admissibility of an expert report are required to be served pursuant to R. 11-6(10). The notice must set out “any objection to the admissibility of the expert’s evidence that the party receiving the report … intends to raise at trial.” The notice required by the Rule is a document mandated by the Rules in which a party must set out their position for trial.
[8]             Rule 9-5(1) is not limited to pleadings but also applies to petitions and “other documents”. Document is defined in R. 1-1(1) in broad terms. There is no doubt the notice required under R. 11-6(10) is a document pursuant to that definition. However, the word must be interpreted ejusdem generis in the context of the phrase, “pleading, petition or other document”. Applying that aid to interpretation, I conclude that “other document” refers to documents which are required by the Rules to formally set out a party’s position, claim or defence. The notice under R. 11-6 (10) is such a document.
In finding the costs threat amounted to an abuse of process the Court provided the following reasons:
[15]         In conclusion, expert witnesses play an important role in the litigation process. When an expert is properly qualified within an area of expertise and the expert’s opinion evidence, which is not otherwise excluded, meets the essential criteria of relevance and necessity in assisting the trier of fact, it can be admitted to assist the court: R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. The Rules establish a process which provides adequate notice of expert opinions and sets up a way to challenge admissibility. There is no need to introduce into the process, by way of boilerplate language in notices under R. 11-6(10), threats of claims against experts for special costs. As I have already noted, it is entirely unnecessary. Further, it has the potential to frustrate the litigation process because it may discourage the participation of expert witnesses. In addition, and contrary to the intent of the new Rules, it would seem to place the expert in an adversarial position.
 

Why You Shouldn't "Steal" and Burn Your Own Car

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 64 Comments on Why You Shouldn't "Steal" and Burn Your Own Car

It should go without saying that stealing and burning your own vehicle with a view to making an insurance claim is not a good idea.
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with a vehicle theft/fire claim.  In last week’s case (Singh v. ICBC ) the Plaintiff purchased a 2007 E-350 Mercedes.  On October 24, 2009 the vehicle was found some 15 minutes from the Plaintiff’s home and “had just been ignited with fire” with flames “shooting ten to twenty feet in the air.”  The luxury vehicle was rendered a total loss.
The Plaintiff made a claim to ICBC to recover damages for loss of the vehicle but they were suspicious of the circumstances and denied the claim.  The Plaintiff sued for damages seeking over $94,000 in replacement cost coverage.
In denying the claim the Court found that the Plaintiff “made a key set available to someone so the Mercedes could be driven to the scene of the fire” and further that the Plaintiff conspired in the destruction of the vehicle with Madam Justice Hyslop finding that “he knew in advance what would happen to the Mercedes“.
In dismissing the claim the Court provided the following reasons:
[122]     Constable Gibo stated that Mr. Singh was not surprised or did not express shock that the Mercedes was on fire, nor did he ask for any details as to the event. He did not care. I find that is because he knew in advance what would happen to the Mercedes.
[123]     I do not accept that the Mercedes was stolen. Mr. Singh’s evidence was that when he purchased the Mercedes he received two sets of keys to operate it. He claims that he mislaid one set of keys, but was very clear that the keys were not lost or stolen. He refused to say when one set of keys was mislaid.
[124]     Expert evidence is before the court that categorically states that Mr. Singh’s Mercedes could not be driven without the keys. The opinion of Mr. Seroogy is that in order to produce a new key, it requires the proper equipment and people with extensive training and experience “in multiple electronic disciplines”. Mr. Seroogy said that the process is delicate and time consuming and could not have been performed within the timeframe between when the Mercedes was last seen and the time when it was found burning. I accept this evidence.
[125]     Mr. Crowe found that there was damage to the right side of the Mercedes. I find that this was intended to cover up the fact that the Mercedes was driven to the site of the fire with a key.
[126]     I find that the Mercedes was driven to the scene of the fire using the keys. The Mercedes was then set on fire.
[127]     The fact that it is unknown who participated in the theft and the destruction of the Mercedes by fire, is of no consequence.
[128]     In his testimony, Mr. Singh completely resiles from his pleadings in which he alleges theft. Mr. Singh repeatedly testified that he was not claiming the Mercedes was stolen, but rather that it was burned. Nothing in his pleadings mentions that the Mercedes was burned.
[129]     In his Claim File Report (by telephone), Mr. Singh claimed that the Mercedes was stolen. No mention was made of it being burned. In his statement of November 4, 2009, he refers to the fire. In his Proof of Loss, he swears that the cause of his loss was by “burned”. However, whether it was stolen or not, it could not be at the location of the fire without being driven there with the use of one of the sets of keys issued to Mr. Singh when he purchased the Mercedes.
In addition to dismissing the claim the Court ordered that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs which I would ballpark at $20,000 – $30,000.  So, the end result is no vehicle, no insurance payout and a significant debt to ICBC.
 

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Modest Soft Tissue Injuries, Knee Pain, Headaches and Anxiety"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s database of BC non-pecuniary damage decisions, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for a lingering injuries from a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Land v. Di Maddalena) the Plaintiff was involved in a collision when he was 8 years old.  He was 17 by the time of trial.  Fault was admitted by the offending motorist.  The Plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries including soft tissue injuries, knee pain, headaches and anxiety.  While he made a good recovery and was able to actively participate in physical sports some symptoms were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Mr. Justice MacKenzie provided the following reasons:
[116]     A fair assessment of damages is difficult in the present case because of the passage of time since the accident, the changes in symptomology over many years, the fact that Spencer is currently 17 years old and not yet fully grown or mature, the possible relationship between his present physical condition and his participation in strenuous sports such as basketball, tennis, soccer, lacrosse and football, especially when Spencer told me he “likes physical contact.” The fact that the medical evidence in this case is very dated has also complicated this analysis. In these circumstances, it is no surprise the evidence and medical opinions as to Spencer’s future physical condition are somewhat equivocal. The extent to which Spencer’s present deficits will affect him in the future is difficult to predict.
[117]     With the above factors in mind, and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I am satisfied that because of the accident, Spencer suffered modest soft tissue injuries, initial knee pain, headaches and anxiety. These have affected his lifestyle to a certain degree, but have now significantly resolved. Fortunately, they have had a relatively modest impact on his activities over the last two years. In my view, a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary damages is $70,000.
 

Another Example of the Unintended Consequences of Personal Injury Trials

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 51 Comments on Another Example of the Unintended Consequences of Personal Injury Trials

When an injury claim proceeds to trial the case becomes one of public record.  The public nature of the proceedings can lead to unintended consequences such as creating a papertrail for Revenue Canada to go after undeclared past earnings.
Another unintended consequence of the open trial process was highlighted in reasons for judgement released this month by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry.  In the recent case the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  He missed some time from work initially but returned to work in 2008 and had “been performing the work duties assigned to him” since that time.   The Plaintiff sought damages for diminished earning capacity and in support of this claim tendered medical evidence speaking to his physical limitations.  When his employer learned of this the Plaintiff was suspended (in this case temporarily) from his employment.  The reasons for judgement highlight this consequence as follows:
[122]     The evidence at trial was clear that the plaintiff has been performing the work duties assigned to him since his return to work in 2008.  However, on the first business day following completion of the trial, the plaintiff was suspended from his duties, without pay, apparently because the City of New Westminster had concerns about the plaintiff’s fitness for duty as a firefighter on the basis of its understanding of the evidence the plaintiff led at trial.  By letter dated June 24, 2013, Chief Armstrong informed the plaintiff as follows:
At the trial and in speaking to legal counsel for yourself and ICBC I learned several things that caused me concern.  First, apparently considerable medical evidence has been tendered at the trial as evidence of your inability to perform the full range of duties required by your position.  Second, you are apparently seeking the recovery of considerable damages as a result of the accident and prior to being subpoenaed, we were not aware that these proceedings had been instituted by you.
…This is to advise that you are being held out of service without pay until you are able to prove to us that you are in fact fit for duty.  We are formally requesting you provide copies of all medical evidence tendered as exhibits at your trial so that we may assess your fitness for duty as expeditiously as possible.
 

A Balanced Costs Award Following Jury Trial

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on A Balanced Costs Award Following Jury Trial

In an illustration that not all trial ‘losses’ trigger catastrophic costs consequences, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, ordering balanced costs consequences.
In this week’s case (Desharnais v. Parkhurst) the Plaintiff was involved in two vehicle collisions.   Prior to trial the Defendants provided two formal offers, the first at $50,000 the second at $75,000.  The Plaintiff, who was seeking in excess of $1 million rejected both offers and proeeded to trial.  Following a thirteen day jury trial the Plaintiff’s damages were ultimately assessed at $30,100.
Both parties had medical evidence to justify their respective positions, however, the Court noted, some of the opinions of the Plaintiff’s experts were “highly suspect”.
The Defendants sought substantial costs having bested their formal settlement offers. The Court noted a more appropriate result would be to award the Plaintiff costs up to the date of the second formal offer and to have the parties bear their own costs thereafter.  While such an order still has significant financial consequences for the Plaintiff it is far less sever than ordering payment of the Defendant’s costs. In reaching this decision Mr.Justice Saunders provided the following reasons:
[42]         On the whole, I do not consider either the First or the Second Offer as having reflected, objectively speaking, a genuine attempt at compromise. I find them to hae been more reflective of what the Applicants could reasonably have hoped to achieve if all or substantially all of the issues were resolved in their favour. I am not dissuaded from taking this view by the fact that the jury awarded even a lesser amount; I do not think it is unfair to counsel or to the jury for me to say that the jury’s decision was considerably less than what reasonably prudent counsel would have regarded as a “win” for the defence. I cannot find that either offer ought reasonably to have been accepted by the plaintiff.
[43]         As Goepel J. stated in Ward, that is the beginning, not the end of the analysis. The most basic principle underpinning the Rules relating to costs is that costs of a proceeding are to be awarded to the successful party (R. 14-1(9)). This expectation is intended to promote sensible conduct throughout court proceeding; it exists notwithstanding the broad judicial discretion to depart from the principle, which is generously built into the Rules.
[44]         In this case, the jury found that the plaintiff had successfully proven some damage. But for the offers to settle, he would be entitled to his costs. Having regard to the factors set out in Rule 9-1(6), including giving some weight to the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, I do not find that the offers were so substantial that the Applicants ought to be entitled to any indemnification against their own costs. The plaintiff’s position was not completely lacking in merit. It was not frivolous. However, the fact that the settlement offers exceeded the judgment amount cannot be ignored. The Applicants were forced to incur the expense of a trial which they were willing to avoid by paying the plaintiff a not insubstantial sum, a sum which ended up being considerably greater than the damages the plaintiff was judged to be entitled to. It would be unfair to require the Applicants to indemnify the plaintiff for the costs of advancing a claim that was ultimately judged to be greatly overvalued.
[45]         I find that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs up to the date of delivery of the Second Offer. The parties will bear their own costs thereafter.
 
 

Supplementary Expert Reports Bound By Document Disclosure Duties

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Uncategorized. 60 Comments on Supplementary Expert Reports Bound By Document Disclosure Duties

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the scope of document disclosure when dealing with supplementary reports.  In short the Court held the same duties apply to supplemental reports as to ‘original’ reports, namely to identify the documents relied on by the expert in forming their opinion.
In this week’s case (Amini v. Khania) the Defendant’s expert authored a supplemental report without listing all the documents relied on.  The Defendant argued the Rules for listing all documents relied on in expert reports do not apply to supplemental reports.  Mr. Justice Burnyeat disagreed and in doing so provided the following reasons:
 [18]         The submission of counsel for the Defendants is that it is not necessary in a supplementary report to include a list of every document relied upon by the expert providing a supplementary opinion.  I am satisfied that the failure of Dr. Dommisse to list the documents that he relied upon is not “cured” by the provisions of Rule 11-6(7).  While it is clear that supplementary reports have a narrow scope and purpose and are only intended to set out where and how a previous opinion has changed in a material way, there is nothing in Rule 11‑6(7) which would allow me to conclude that the filing of a supplementary report can circumvent the clear and mandatory requirements of Rule 11‑6(1)…
[21]         The very purpose of Rule 11‑6 is that all expert reports should be tendered in a way that neither side can be ambushed or surprised at trial…
[23]         A supplementary expert report remains an expert report.  It must comply with the rules set out in Rule 11‑6(1).  Otherwise, the supplementary opinion would be based on unknown facts and assumptions.  It would be impossible to give the necessary weight to a supplementary expert opinion as it would be impossible to compare the facts upon which that opinion was based with the findings of fact ultimately made by the Court.  The provision of a supplementary report which does not comply with Rule 11‑6(1) should not be used to circumvent the requirement that no party will be caught by surprise by an expert report.
 

"It Is Contrary to Public Policy to Permit Contracts out of Liability for Damages for Personal Injuries" in BC Vehicle Collision Cases

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Important reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Court of Appeal confirming, in divided reasons, that it is contrary to public policy to allow a vehicle owner/operator to contract out of liability for damages for personal injuries.
In today’s case (Niedermeyer v. Charlton) the Plaintiff embarked on a tour to Whistler  BC to participate in various activities including a zip lining experience.  Transportation to and from Whistler was provided the by the Defendant.   During the return trip the bus driver “allowed the bus to get too close to the edge of the road and…the bus went off the road and over the edge“.  The Plaintiff suffered severe injuries including a fractured neck, ribs and vertebra.
Prior to the trip the Plaintiff signed a waiver agreement which covered activities such as ziplining but also included a clause covering “travel to and from the tour areas”.  The Defendant was, like most BC motorists, insured with ICBC and the Plaintiff sued for damages.  The Defendant admitted he was negligent but the waiver was upheld at trial dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.  In overturning this decision the majority of BC’s Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:
[114]     In my view, the ICBC regime is intended as a benefit for the public interest just as is human rights legislation. It would be contrary to public policy and to a harmonious contextual interpretation of the legislation to allow private parties to contract out of this regime. As such, to the extent that the Release purports to release liability for motor vehicle accidents it is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable. The judge erred in finding that the public policy interest exemplified in a compulsory universal insurance scheme was incapable of defeating society’s interest in freedom of contract.
 

A Creative Sick Leave Benefits Award

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wage Loss, Uncategorized. 72 Comments on A Creative Sick Leave Benefits Award

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, making an interesting award with respect to past wage loss covered by a sick leave plan.
In this week’s case (Bulpitt v. Muirhead) the Plaintiff, a firefighter, was injured in a  2007 collision.  He did not suffer an actual wage loss as “he received all of the wages he would otherwise have received had the accident not occurred as sick leave benefits to which he was entitled as an employee of the City of New Westminster“.   These benefits were subject to a subrogation agreement which was put into evidence.  The court expressed concern about whether this was a sufficient basis to make an award for past loss of wages.  Instead, the court did not award money for past wage loss but used its inherent jurisdiction to make a blanket order that the Defendant provide full indemnity to the plaintiff in respect of any amount of the judgement that the plaintiff is, or becomes, obligated to re-pay the City.  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Weatherill provided the following reasons:
[102]     The only evidence proffered by the plaintiff during the trial in respect of a claim for past wage loss came in the form of a letter dated June 6, 2008 from a payroll clerk with the City of New Westminster to ICBC.  It states:
“Please find enclosed the completed Certificate of Earnings form for [the plaintiff].  I am also attaching a copy of the subrogation agreement from the Collective Agreement for The City Firefighters’ Union, Local 256.
The gross pay lost up to May 30, 2008 due to [the Accident] is $20,365.56.  Please be aware that his sick claim is still ongoing so this figure is not a final amount.
When a settlement has been reached, please forward to my attention the total amount of earnings lost due to this accident, plus any interest attributed to those earnings, payable to the City of New Westminster.  This will allow us to credit Mr. Bulpitt’s sick plan and return any gratuity hours that he lost due to the accident.               
[Emphasis added]
[103]     The attached “subrogation agreement” states:

Sick Leave Recovery

a) An employee may use sick leave credits for time lost through accidental injuries PROVIDED THAT prior to making a claim or commencing an action for damages against a third party in respect of such injuries, he shall notify the Employer of such claim and enable the Employer the opportunity to be represented in all proceedings or settlement discussions relating to the claim.  Any such claim shall include a claim for loss of wages including pre- and post- judgement interest, and to the extent that recovery is made, such amount will be reimbursed to the Employer.  The Employer will reimburse the employee, fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the legal fees certified by the employee’s legal counsel as being attributed to providing the wage/benefit loss claim.
[104]     During argument at trial, I expressed to plaintiff’s counsel my concern that this evidence was insufficient to prove the employer’s right to make a subrogated claim for the wage benefits it had paid to the plaintiff while he was unable to work due to his Accident-related injuries…
[108]     Regardless, it is my view that the June 6, 2008 letter and the excerpted portion of the Collective Agreement is evidence that the plaintiff’s sick leave benefits were not as they would have been but for the Accident.  Clearly, there was a benefit plan that had been negotiated by the City and the firefighters’ union the terms of which were contained in the Collective Agreement.  Further, this letter is evidence of what it will take to restore the plaintiff’s sick leave plan to its pre-Accident status.
[109]     In all cases, the court retains residual power to grant appropriate relief through its inherent jurisdiction: Anderson v. Buydens, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2675 at para.16 (S.C.).  In this case, a miscarriage of justice would result if the plaintiff was awarded nothing for past wage loss because he received benefits from his employer yet the employer was able to “claw back” those same benefits by way of a right of subrogation.  I am satisfied that there ought to be a provisional award for past wage loss in this case.  The plaintiff is entitled to full indemnity from the defendants in respect of any amount to which the plaintiff is or becomes obligated to re-pay to the City of New Westminster in respect of benefits he received as a result of the Accident.
 

Principled Exception to the Hearsay Rule Fails to Save Mystery Witness Statement

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

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing the use of the principled exception to the hearsay rule with respect to a statement from an unidentified witness.
In today’s case (Biggs v. Doe) the Plaintiff was involved in a serious collision in 2006.  His motorcycle struck the pup trailer of a dump truck.  This resulted in profound injuries which required an above knee amputation for the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleged that an unidentified motorist struck his motorcycle from behind which forced him to lose control causing the collision.  In support of his claim the Plaintiff attempted to introduce the hearsay evidence of an unknown witness present at the scene who apparently could corroborate the Plaintiff’s version of events.  In finding there is no reliability to the proposed evidence Mr. Justice Bernard provided the following reasons in excluding it:
 [61]         Mr. Biggs seeks to tender the unknown woman’s statements to Mr. Lasser for their truth, pursuant to the well-established “principled exception” to the rule against hearsay. The principled exception permits the admissibility of a hearsay statement for its truth if it is shown, by the party seeking to adduce it, to be both necessary and reliable. In relation to the latter, it is threshold (vs. ultimate) reliability that is the evidentiary standard that must be met for admissibility…
[64]         Having due regard for the foregoing legal principles, for the reasons which follow I am not persuaded that the plaintiff has established that there is threshold reliability to the evidence in question; accordingly, the claimed observations of the unknown witness cannot be admitted into evidence for their truth. In short, the plaintiff has not established either that the statements were made in circumstances in which there is no compelling concern about their reliability, or that sufficient means for assessing their reliability exists.
[65]         In this regard, virtually nothing is known about the woman to whom the statements are attributed other than she was present at the scene of the accident, claimed to have seen it, was upset by it, and chose not speak to the police or even identify herself to them in circumstances which cried out for doing so. Her failure to act responsibly is very troubling. It raises concerns about her motives and, thus, the reliability of any words attributed to her.
[66]          Significantly, this woman cannot be linked to a specific vehicle, and there is no evidence of where she was and, thus, what her perspective was at the time of her observations. In the absence of such evidence, no reasonable inferences can be drawn about her ability to make accurate observations and relate them to others.
[67]         The nature of the event the unknown woman witnessed is an important factor. In the instant case, the event was a dynamic one involving multiple motor vehicles moving at relatively high speeds in relation to one another and at the time of the collision with the pup trailer. Even witnesses who are well-positioned, focused, and have clear and unobstructed views are prone to misperceiving or misconstruing such highly dynamic events. 
[68]         The circumstances in which the statements were made and the absence of any recording of relatively complex assertions at a time reasonably proximate to the utterances, raise significant concerns about Mr. Lasser’s ability to restate them with accuracy. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Mr. Lasser was not an investigator and that his focus was on the task of setting out road flares. The unknown witness was in an agitated state and Mr. Lasser neither questioned anything she said nor sought any clarification. Testifying to the gist of what an eyewitness said is troubling when the statements venture well beyond a simple and clear assertion that can be repeated with confidence as to its accuracy. For example, at trial Mr. Lasser remained uncertain as to whether the unknown woman said the events unfolded ahead of her or from behind, as observed through a rear-view mirror.
[69]         Finally, it is of some significance that the unknown witness described events which are inconsistent with other reliable evidence. For example, it is not a matter of controversy that Mr. Booth’s fifth wheel was in the far right lane at all relevant times. This evidence is difficult to reconcile with the unknown woman’s version of events which apparently has the motorcyclist in the same lane as the fifth wheel when it accelerated into the bumper of the fifth wheel to avoid a car merging from his right side. There is no lane to the right of the merge lane; moreover, the unknown witness does not describe a rear impact to the motorcycle.
[70]         For all the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded that the evidence in question meets the standard of threshold reliability; indeed, in my assessment it falls very far short of it. In the absence of threshold reliability, admissibility under the “principled exception” to the rule against hearsay must fail and, thus, there is no need to determine whether the “necessity” prong of the two-part test has been satisfied.
 

Disbursement Interest Claim Allowed at 6%

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, allowing a Plaintiff to recover interest charged on a loan which financed disbursements.
In today’s case (Phippen v. Hampton) the Plaintiff sued for damages following a personal injury.  In the course of the claim the Plaintiff borrowed funds from a company associated with the lawfirm she hired to advance her personal injury claim.  This loan was for disbursement funding and the lender charged interest at 15%.  The Court was satisfied that the loan was needed but reduced the recoverable interest to 6%.  In reaching this conclusion District Registrar Cameron provided the following reasons:
[2]             I am satisfied based upon the Affidavit evidence provided by Ms. Phippen, that she has established that her financial situation was such that it was necessary and proper for her to seek out financing for the disbursements that needed to be incurred to pursue her claim…
[5]             Mr. Mullally goes on to say — and I do not find this to be controversial — that it is difficult for most clients who have suffered a personal injury to finance the necessary disbursements that must be incurred to advance their case.
[6]             In passing, of course, this highlights the need for contingency fee agreements that allow for access to justice and alongside that disbursement loan arrangements, if they can be accommodated by the law firm or arranged by the law firm also help with that same purpose in mind…
[12]         Turning to the circumstances of this case, Ms. Phippen was charged an interest rate of 15 percent by PIL.
[13]         In Chandi, supra, Mr. Justice Savage said that the Registrar must consider the entire context of the arrangement.  In this case — and I refer back to Mr. Mullally’s evidence — while the law firm did not itself lend the funds necessary for the disbursements to the Plaintiff, a company that the law firm or members of the law firm had a controlling interest in provided that assistance.
[14]         Looking at the matter contextually I find that the law firm was not arm’s length from the lender, PIL. This was properly conceded by Plaintiff’s counsel. In this case, the law firm arranged the necessary loan for the Plaintiff that provided for a profitable rate of interest to the lender. In the current economic climate, I am not satisfied that an interest rate of 15 percent is reasonable to pass along to the Defendant, and as Master McDiarmid and Master Young have done in the decisions I  have referred to, I will award a rate of six percent.