Skip to main content

Inadequate Notice of Application Criticized By the BC Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 8, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 178 Comments on Inadequate Notice of Application Criticized By the BC Supreme Court

Reasons for judgement were released last week serving as a reminder that the new Rules of Court require fulsome arguments to be set out in applications filed with the Court.
In last week’s case (Dupre v. Patterson) the Defendant brought a summary trial application seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.  Not only was the application unsuccessful with the Court finding the Defendant at fault for the collision underlying the litigation, the Court went on to give the following criticism of applications that fail to set out adequate factual or legal arguments in their support:
[44]         Before concluding, I wish to say a few words about the material filed. 
[45]         The defendant’s notice of application filed July 3, 2013, did not comply with the Supreme Court Civil Rules.  The complete “Factual Basis” for the summary trial was set out on about three pages, double spaced.  The “Legal Basis” section said in its entirety:
1.         Rule 9-7
2.         Rule 14-1(12) – costs
3.         Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC1996, c. 318, Part 3, section 183(2)(c).
[46]         There was not even a brief statement to the effect of “The court should dismiss the action because” and then setting out the reason or reasons why, in the defendant’s submission, that should be the result.
[47]         In Zecher v. Josh, 2011 BCSC 311, Master Bouck was faced with a similar situation, where the Legal Basis section in particular of the notice of application was wholly inadequate.  Master Bouck described what was required in order to comply with the Rules and said:
[29]      The defendants’ application for production of wage loss particulars and a calculation of any wage loss claim was dismissed due to the inadequacy of the material and argument presented. Both the factual and legal basis for the application are wanting.
[30]      Form 32 of the SCCR [Supreme Court Civil Rules] lends itself to providing both the opposing party and the court with full disclosure of the argument to be made in chambers. Parties should put in as much thought to the necessary content of that Form as is done when preparing the supporting affidavits. When a party is represented, responsibility for that content lies with counsel.
[31]      No doubt the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council intended Part 3 of Form 32 to contain more than a cursory listing of the Rules that might support the particular application. For example, common law authorities can and should be included as well as a brief legal analysis. Such an analysis is particularly helpful given that parties are not able to present a separate written argument in civil chambers unless the application is scheduled to take two hours or more of court time.
[32]      In my experience and observation, a comprehensive legal analysis can easily be included in a 10-page notice of application. As well, Rule 8-1(4) allows the parties to include a list of authorities in the application record.
[33]      By providing an effective analysis of the legal basis for (or against) making the order, the parties may well be able to resolve the application without attending court.
[34]      As an aside, I should note that the sparse content of this particular notice of application is unfortunately not unique; many such inadequate notices have been presented in chambers.
[48]         I agree with and adopt Master Bouck’s comments concerning what a notice of application must contain.  The same will apply with respect to an application response (Form 33), and the notice of application and application response under the Supreme Court Family Rules (Forms F31 and F32).
[49]         In Fraser, Horn and Griffin, The Conduct of Civil Litigation in British Columbia, 2nd ed. loose-leaf (Markham:  LexisNexis, 2007) one of the leading texts on practice and procedure, the authors say this concerning the “Legal Basis” section of a notice of application, at p. 32-3 [notes omitted]:
            The notice must set out the rule, enactment or other jurisdictional authority relied on for the orders sought and any other legal arguments on which the order sought should be granted (Rule 8-1(4)(c)).  If appropriate, applicable cases may be cited.  The argument to be made in chambers should be fully disclosed and should contain more than a cursory listing of the rules that might support the particular application.
[50]         The requirements under the current Rules represent a fundamental change from the practice under the former Rules of Court.  Under the former Rules, Rule 44(3) and Form 55 (the form of notice of motion) only required a bare statement of the Rule or enactment relied upon.  An outline (see Form 125 and former Rule 51A(12)), outlining the legal arguments to be made, was then delivered later in the exchange of motion materials and prior to the hearing.  That is not the practice under the current Rules.
[51]         If a notice of application does not contain the information now required under the Rules, the party filing it has failed to give proper notice – to the opposing party and to the court – of the nature of the application.  However, all too frequently, counsel in both civil and family cases are signing and filing inadequate notices of application and application responses.  The notice of application filed in this case was not at all unique.  However, such documents do not comply with the Rules.
[52]         In contrast to the bare-bones notice of application filed on behalf of Ms. Patterson, the application response was comprehensive and, in the page limit allowed under the Rules, set out both a detailed summary of the facts and an analysis of the legal basis on which the plaintiff said the court should find the defendant liable.  It represents the standard expected by the court.
[53]         In this case, the inadequacy of the notice of application was compounded by defendant’s counsel tendering a 14-page written submission at the hearing.  Since the hearing was estimated and set for 90 minutes, this was in breach of Rule 8-1(16). 
[54]         Rarely will a judge or master refuse to receive a written argument from counsel, provided it is not being used to “sandbag” or take the opposition by surprise.  However, tendering a written argument at the hearing is neither an alternative to, nor a substitute for, setting out the “Legal Basis” in a notice of application or an application response in accordance with what the Rules and the case law require.
[55]         When counsel come to court with inadequate materials, which fail to comply with the Rules, judges and masters are placed in a very difficult position.  What often happens is that, to avoid the inconvenience and expense of an adjournment, matters proceed despite the inadequate materials, and judges and masters do the best they can in the circumstances.  But inadequate motion materials, which fail to comply with theRules, are incompatible with the efficient and timely disposition of applications.
[56]         If counsel are coming to court with inadequate material that clearly fails to comply with the Rules, and counting on being heard, they are misguided.  Judges and masters are entitled to expect that counsel will prepare application materials (including affidavits) that comply with the Rules, and do no less than this.  Counsel who come to court with application materials that do not comply risk having their applications at least adjourned, with potential cost consequences, until proper materials are filed.
[57]         That completes my ruling.

Fault For Right Hand Turning Vehicle Striking Cyclist Discussed by BC Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 111 Comments on Fault For Right Hand Turning Vehicle Striking Cyclist Discussed by BC Supreme Court

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the issue of fault for a collision involving a right hand turning vehicle and a cyclist attempting to pass the vehicle on the inside lane.

In this week’s case (Nelson v. Lafarge Canada Inc.) the Plaintiff was “cycling hard and fast alongside the Truck as the two approached the Intersection in tandem.  Mr. Nelson’s speed exceeded the Truck’s and it is apparent he was overtaking it on the right as the Truck turned onto Nanaimo.”  There was video of the actual collision presented in evidence and it demonstrated that the Truck driver “did engage the Truck’s right signal prior to executing his right turn onto Nanaimo.  I accept that he did so well before he arrived at the Intersection after the light had turned green.”
As the truck turned, on a still green light, a collision occurred.  Madam Justice Dickson found both parties to blame for the collision with the cyclist bearing 65% of the fault.  In reaching this concluding the Court provided the following reasons:
[77]         I agree with counsel for the defendants that Mr. Conarroe was the dominant driver in the circumstances of this Accident.  He was proceeding on a green light in the appropriate lane and had signaled his right turn well in advance.  He had also looked around as he turned onto Nanaimo and, generally speaking, was entitled to assume that others would obey the rules of the road.  Nevertheless, the presence of cyclists in the adjacent curb lane was both proper and predictable.  In addition, I have found Mr. Conarroe could and should have kept a more vigilant look-out in the period leading up to the right turn to ensure that it could be safely made.
[78]         Had Mr. Conarroe kept a more vigilant look-out after he stopped for the red light on Hastings and before he started his right turn he would have observed Mr. Nelson cycling hard and fast in the curb lane behind or beside him.  It would have been apparent that Mr. Nelson was focusing straight ahead and might attempt to overtake on the right as the two approached the green light, despite the riskiness of such conduct.  Armed with this knowledge, Mr. Conarroe could have avoided the Accident by waiting to commence his turn in the Intersection until it was clear either that Mr. Nelson had abandoned the unfolding attempt to pass on the right or completed it successfully.  His failure to do so was a failure to take reasonable care and a contributing cause of the Accident.
[79]         Mr. Nelson also failed to take reasonable care for his own safety, which failure was a contributing cause of the Accident.  Although, based on Jang, I find that the curb lane was a through lane for cyclists I also find it was unsafe for him to attempt to pass the right-turning Truck when there was little, if any, margin for error associated with such an attempt.  As noted, this was a breach of s. 158(2)(a) of the Act.  It also fell well below the standard of care to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in all of the circumstances.
[80]         Mr. Nelson suffered serious harm and damage as a result of the Accident.  The damage has two proximate causes:  the negligence of both parties.  In these circumstances, liability must be apportioned between the two.
[81]         In assessing the respective fault and blameworthiness of the parties I must evaluate the extent or degree to which each departed from the standard of care owed under the circumstances.
[82]         In balancing blameworthiness, I find Mr. Nelson’s conduct constituted a significant departure from the requisite standard of care which created a risk of serious harm.  He was aware of the Truck travelling eastbound on his left but focused only on his own path forward and did not check for an activated right turn signal, which was there to be seen.  Instead, he tried to pass the Truck on the right without first determining whether such a movement could be made safely.  In my view, such conduct was very careless.
[83]         Mr. Conarroe’s conduct also constituted a significant departure from the requisite standard of care, taking into account the vigilance reasonably to be expected of a professional truck driver.  He waited far too long to look carefully and thoroughly around himself as he prepared to turn right.  This is particularly true given his knowledge of the Truck’s many blind spots.  In consequence, Mr. Conarroe was unaware of the fact that Mr. Nelson was cycling hard and fast in the adjacent curb lane after the light changed colour at the Intersection.  This failure was not momentary or minor, and it carried the risk of foreseeable harm of considerable magnitude.  In my view, however, it was not of the same degree as Mr. Nelson’s failure to take reasonable care for his own safety in attempting to pass a right-turning Truck on the right.
[84]         In all of the circumstances, I conclude that 65% of the fault for the Accident should be borne by Mr. Nelson and 35% should be borne by Mr. Conarroe.

Single Vehicle Leaving Roadway With No Reasonable Explanation Sufficient to Prove Negligence

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized.

Two cases were recently released by the BC Supreme Court addressing negligence in the face of single vehicle collisions involving vehicles leaving the roadway.
In the first case (McKenzie v. Mills) the Plaintiff was injured when she was the passenger in a vehicle the left the roadway.  The Plaintiff had no recall of how the collision occurred.  The Defendant disputed liability arguing there was no sufficient evidence to prove the collision was caused by negligence.  Madam Justice Dorgan disagreed finding that absent a sensible explanation by the Defendant negligence could be inferred.  In so concluding the Court provided the following reasons:
[30]         Crossing the oncoming traffic lane and even losing control to the point of rolling the vehicle does not necessarily give rise to an inference of negligence; in other words, it is not determinative of the issue of liability.  See Benoit v. Farrell Estate, 2004 BCCA 348 where Smith J.A., writing for the court, says at para. 77:
The question whether negligence should be inferred when a motor vehicle has left its proper lane of travel usually arises in cases, like Fontaine, where the driver of the vehicle is sued by a plaintiff injured in the accident.  In such cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.  The inference that a vehicle does not normally leave its proper lane in the absence of negligence by its operator may afford a prima facie case but, if the defendant driver produces a reasonable explanation that is as consistent with no negligence as with negligence, the inference will be neutralized:  see paras. 23-24.
[31]         However, in this case, neither the defendant nor the third party offered evidence of explanation of the cause or circumstances of the accident.  The defendant left her lane of travel (northbound), crossed over the oncoming lane (southbound), and rolled the truck which was found in the ditch of the southbound lane.  The defendant was intoxicated at the scene; she was given a 24-hour driving prohibition as a result; and was charged with driving while subject to a driving restriction.  While her level of intoxication at the scene is not direct evidence of intoxication while driving, there is no evidence of the defendant, or the plaintiff for that matter, drinking after the accident and before the police arrived.  The only reasonable inference to draw is that the defendant was driving while drunk.
[32]         I have concluded the only reasonable inference to draw from the whole of the evidence is that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant.  The defendant offers no evidence of explanation; therefore, the plaintiff has proved liability.
In the second case (Garneau v. Izatt-Sill) the vehicle left the roadway.  There were no witnesses and two of the vehicles occupants were killed due to the forces of the crash.  The Plaintiff, the sole survivor, had no recall of what occurred.   The Court found that in the circumstances a finding of negligence was warranted with Mr. Justice Weatherill providing the following reasons:
[100]     The evidence leads overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and that his negligence caused the crash.  The posted speed limit was 110 kph.  The vehicle was travelling in excess of 130 kph at the time of the accident.  As Sgt. Nightingale put it, the crash was caused by speed and the driver’s inattentiveness.  I accept this evidence.  Mr. Bowler agreed that there was no indication of anything mechanically wrong with the vehicle that would have caused or contributed to the crash and that the crash was consistent with driver inattention. 
[101]     In such circumstances, negligence can be inferred: Nason v. Nunes, 2008 BCCA 203 at para. 8.  The defendants led no evidence to the contrary.  

2012 ICBC Doctor and Lawyer Billings Published

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

It’s that time of year again.  ICBC has now released their annual Statements and Schedules of Financial Information for 2012.  This is my 7th year highlighting this information.  You can access the following previous years information at the following links:
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
As previously discussed, this report highlights the billings of Suppliers of Goods and Services which includes doctors who perform ‘independent’ medical exams for ICBC.   When ICBC sends you to an independent medical exam these financial statements can be checked to see just how much money any given physician was paid by ICBC in a calendar year.
ICBC routinely uses a handful of doctors to perform these independent exams.  A quick glance reveals that some physicians bill well into the six digit range annually for these services.
Another provider of ’services’ revealed in these financial statements are law firms who do ICBC defence work. I have previously posted that some lawfirms and lawyers work both sides of the fence, that is on some cases they work for ICBC and in other cases they work for injured plaintiff’s suing someone insured by ICBC. According to the BC Law Society there is nothing wrong with this but these lawyers need to let their clients know if they signed the ICBC defence contract(known as the SAA) which restricts the lawyers ability to make claims against ICBC.  This is required so clients can make an informed decision when choosing to hire their lawyer.
If you hired a lawyer to advance your ICBC injury claim and are curious if your lawyer also works for ICBC you can check these annual reports to see just how much money any given lawfirm is paid by ICBC in each calendar year.

Court of Appeal Orders Return of Funds Paid After New Trial Ordered

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 49 Comments on Court of Appeal Orders Return of Funds Paid After New Trial Ordered

What happens when a litigant sues and wins, collects part of the judgement, but then a new trial is ordered after appeal?  Reasons for judgement were released by the BC Court of Appeal last week addressing such a situation.
In last week’s case (Camaso Estate v. Saanich (District)) the Plaintiff estate successfully sued for damages where the trial judge found a police officer was grossly negligent for fatally shooting the ‘disturbed’ plaintiff.  Damages of over $300,000 were assessed.  The Defendant appealed and pending appeal obtained an order for a partial stay upon the defendant paying the sum of $119,456.20 to the plaintiff.  The Defendant successfully appealed and obtained an order for a new trial.  The Defendant sought return of the $119,456.  The Plaintiff opposed arguing the Court of Appeal was functus and had no ability to make such an order.  BC’s High Court disagreed and provided the following reasons ordering the return of the funds:
[10]         We do not consider that we are being asked to revisit our order determining the appeal or to adjudicate upon any issue that should have been addressed at the hearing of the appeal.  We are being asked to give a procedural remedy arising out of a process that was initiated and ran its course in this court alone.  The trial court gave a money judgment without terms as to payment.  Terms of payment of the judgment were addressed only in this court in the form of a stay of execution application brought by the appellants under s. 18(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77.  We are not being asked to rehear or to reconsider any aspect of this appeal.  No variation of our order allowing the appeal is sought.  This is merely a housekeeping matter that arises out of the proceedings in this court.  Therefore, the doctrine of functus officio has no application. 
[11]         In a similar case, this court determined that the court has the power to make the kind of order sought by the appellants in the present case: Vaillancourt v. Molnar, 2004 BCCA 384.  In Vaillancourt, the court reduced the amount of a jury award for damages for personal injury with the result that the appellant/defendant, pursuant to a pre-appeal agreement between the parties, had paid the respondent about $72,000 more than she was entitled to receive.  The court relied on s. 9(8) of the Court of Appeal Act: 
[6]        We agree with counsel that this Court has jurisdiction to make an order for repayment of the overpayment. In that regard, we need look no further than s. 9(8) of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. c. 77:
(8) For all purposes of and incidental to the hearing and determination of any matter and the amendment, execution and enforcement of any order and for the purpose of every other authority expressly or impliedly given to the Court of Appeal,
(a) the Court of Appeal has the power, authority and jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court …
[7]        In the result, we conclude that it is appropriate to make the order sought by the appellant, namely, that the respondent shall pay to the appellant the amount of the excess payment, plus interest to the date of repayment.
[12]         See also Hoskin v. Han, 2005 BCCA 483.
[13]         In our opinion, the court retains the power under s. 9(8) to make the order sought, it being a procedural remedy incidental to the appeal and the stay of execution order.
[14]         There will be an order that the respondents forthwith pay to the appellants the sum of $119,456.20. 

Plaintiff Denied Costs for Having No Sufficient Reason to Sue in the Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Uncategorized.

One of the more difficult fact patterns to predict the outcome of is when will a Plaintiff be granted costs when they sue in the BC Supreme Court but are awarded damages below $25,000 (the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court in BC).  You can click here to read archived decisions addressing this.  Adding to these, reasons for judgement were released this week considering such a scenario.
In this week’s case (Akbari v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision caused by an unidentified motorist.  He successfully sued ICBC and was awarded damages of just over $13,000.  Following this the Plaintiff sought costs of $17,000.  Madam Justice Baker denied this finding the Plaintiff had no sufficient reason to sue in Supreme Court. In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:
[16]         I am not persuaded that there was sufficient reason to bring this action in Supreme Court.  As the plaintiff submits, the issue of liability was the primary issue at trial.  The Provincial Court is an entirely appropriate forum for determining that issue, the outcome of which largely depended on an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
[17]         Ms. Berry of ICBC had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the accident.  I can surmise that questions put to her on discovery may have related to contact by ICBC representatives with one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, Mr. Nahun Chinchilla, whose testimony I rejected at trial as incredible and unreliable.  Mr. Chinchilla voluntarily contacted both the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel and so far as I am aware, volunteered to be interviewed by plaintiff’s counsel prior to trial, so it was not necessary to utilize the Supreme Court Rules to compel his cooperation.
[18]         I am not persuaded that any documents and witness statements provided by the defendant to the plaintiff during the course of pre-trial preparation would not have been supplied by the defendant whether the action had been brought in Supreme Court or in Provincial Court.
[19]         I am not persuaded that there was any reasonable prospect that the plaintiff’s total damages would exceed $25,000.  The special damages and past loss of income were known.  The only head of damages involving uncertainty was non-pecuniary damages. The only medical evidence presented at trial was a report from Mr. Akbari’s family doctor, dated June 2, 2011.  In my view, it should have been obvious to the plaintiff and his counsel, after considering that report, that an award in the range of $25,000 was highly unlikely.
[20]         The report and the opinions expressed in it were sufficiently non-controversial that Dr. Rai was not required to attend for cross-examination.  In Dr. Rai’s opinion, Mr. Akbari suffered soft tissue injuries – described by Dr. Rai as “tendonious strain” affecting Mr. Akbari’s left calf, knee and thigh – from which he had recovered in 8 to 10 weeks.  Mr. Akbari was off work for two weeks, but it was during the Christmas holidays and he had planned to take some vacation during that period in any event.  The injuries caused little disruption to Mr. Akbari, only temporarily interfering with his participation in pick-up soccer games, and his weight-lifting routine at the gym.
[21]         In the plaintiff’s written submissions regarding costs, it was suggested that the concluding paragraph of my trial Reasons, in which I stated that I was not aware of any reason why the plaintiff should not have his costs on Scale B, was a determination of the issue.  That is not correct.  Unless a defendant invokes Rule 14-1, a plaintiff is normally entitled to costs.  Once the Rule is invoked, then the court must consider whether there was sufficient reason to bring the proceeding in the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff shall have disbursements only. 

MRI Disbursement Allowed Where Expense Incurred for Dual Purposes

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 60 Comments on MRI Disbursement Allowed Where Expense Incurred for Dual Purposes

Reasons for judgment were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, allowing the costs associated with a private MRI to be recovered as a disbursement in a personal injury claim.
In last week’s case (Wu v. Ly) the plaintiff commissioned a private MRI following a motor vehicle collision.  This was done following a recommendation of her treating physician.  In allowing this disbursement to be recovered District Registrar Cameron provided the following brief reasons:
[7]             In Colasimone v. Ng and Mo, 2007 BCSC 1179, Madam Justice Gropper was dealing with an appeal of a decision of District Registrar Blok (as he then was) that allowed the cost of MRI scans as a taxable disbursement.  Her Ladyship notes:
In his reasons for judgment Registrar Blok describes MRI scans as presenting a “special problem in considering party and party bill of costs.”  He notes that MRI scans can be used for either or both treatment and litigation and sometimes the line is blurred. The Registrar concludes:
I am satisfied that a sufficient litigation purpose was shown on the evidence before me such that the disbursement was reasonably incurred, necessary and proper in a litigation purpose.  Specifically the purpose here was for Mr. Maryn to make a decision about the impending trial.
Registrar Blok has considered the “special problem” that MRI scans present in his decision of Ward v. W.S. Lessing Ltd., 2007 BCSC 877.  He comments that the cost of MRI scans have been allowed and disallowed as a disbursement.  There are cases which support either position, but as the Registrar notes, each turns on its facts.  The Registrar continues:
If an MRI was performed for the purposes of treatment, then it may be claimed as an item of special damages.  If it is used as an aid in the litigation process, then it is properly claimed as a disbursement on a party and party bill of costs.  Those are the typical questions that are dealt with when MRIs are at issue.
[T]here must be some judgment applied, perhaps with medical input, in considering the necessity for the procedure in a litigation context, given the injuries involved, the likely damages, what the MRI is expected to achieve from a litigation standpoint and so on.
[8]             In paragraph 22 of her decision, Her Ladyship concludes by saying, having reviewed all of the evidence:
Thus the scans were for two purposes:  to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and for treatment purposes.
[9]             In the result Madam Justice Gropper upheld the Registrar’s decision, finding he did not clearly err in finding that the disbursement related to MRI scans was reasonably, necessarily and properly incurred for the purposes of the litigation.
[10]         In this case there is evidence before me that the impetus for the MRI was from Dr. le Nobel, who was a treating physician for the Plaintiff and who was continuing to suffer ongoing pain and discomfort some four years following the motor vehicle accident.  Because of Dr. le Nobel’s concern about her continuing symptoms and to better assess them, he recommended that an MRI examination be done.
[11]         Mr. Wiseman was involved as counsel in the process and pointed out that the cost for the MRI examination was one that was paid directly by him.  He was concerned to have the best evidence available to serve as a foundation to most reliably assess the Plaintiff’s claim for damages. I am satisfied that this is one of those cases where the MRI was obtained for two purposes being  for diagnosis and also to assist the Plaintiff and her counsel in better evaluate and present her claim for damages.
[12]         Mr. Chalcraft did not take any issue with the cost of the MRI other than to object to the claim for interest.  Mr. Wiseman abandoned the claim for interest, and as a result the MRI disbursement is allowed as claimed in the sum of $1,595.

Riding In a Towed Vehicle Found Negligent by BC Supreme Court

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 56 Comments on Riding In a Towed Vehicle Found Negligent by BC Supreme Court


In a case involving a comedy of mishaps leading up to a motor vehicle incident, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing whether it is negligent to ride in a vehicle that is being towed.
In last week’s case (Tabor v. Bridge) the Plaintiffs were involved in a series of mishaps which ultimately led to them having their vehicle towed.  Despite the prohibition of riding in a vehicle that is being towed the Defendant tow truck driver allowed the Plaintiff’s to ride in their own vehicle.   In the course of the trip the tow truck’s dolly system broke causing the towed vehicle to sway back and forth causing injuries to the Plaintiff’s.  The Defendant was found negligent for failing to properly assemble the dolly system.  The Court went on to find that the Plaintiffs were also contributorily negligent for riding in a vehicle that was being towed. In finding them 25% at fault for this decision Mr. Justice Cohen provided the following reasons:
[34]         Section 7.07(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, B.C. Reg. 26/58 provides that no person shall tow a motor vehicle if there is a person in or on the towed motor vehicle.  There is no doubt that provision was breached in this case.  However, the law provides that mere breach of a statute, standing alone, does not constitute negligence per se: see Van Tent v. Abbotsford (City) 2013 BCCA 236…
[46]         In the case at bar, I find that the plaintiffs appreciated the risk associated with them riding together with their children as passengers in the Ford Explorer while it was being towed.  I also find that they accepted the risk not only because of the assurance they received from the defendant driver as to their safety, but also because they considered this option in all of the circumstances to be more convenient than waiting at the BMW site for a cab to take them home, especially because once they were back at the terminal they could ask the superintendent to arrange a cab to drive them to Surrey at no cost to them.
[47]         In my opinion, regardless of what the plaintiffs were told by the defendant driver about their safety, or for that matter the fact that the police observed the situation and did nothing to stop it, they nevertheless had an obligation to assess the risk and act reasonably.  The fact that the defendant driver told them it was a safe option did not mean that the risk associated with the situation they accepted was unforeseeable.  Thus, I am satisfied that to some degree the plaintiffs were to blame, but I find that the defendant driver was at fault to a much greater degree.
[48]         I find that the defendant driver knew full well that it was against the law to permit persons to ride in a vehicle being towed.  His responsibility in this regard was not removed by the fact that he believed the police would not penalize him in the circumstances.  In addition, he was completely in control of the situation in terms of allowing the plaintiffs and their children to ride in the Ford Explorer while it was being towed.  He could have easily refused them this option or have offered to take two of them at a time back to the terminal in his tow truck.
[49]         When I balance the relative degrees of fault, I find that liability should be apportioned 25% to the plaintiffs and 75% to the defendant driver.

Private MRI Disbursement Disallowed Due To No Evidence of Urgency

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, disallowing recovery of the costs of a private MRI in a personal injury lawsuit.
In this week’s case (Repmicki v. 616696 BC Ltd) the plaintiff obtained a private MRI in the course of his lawsuit.  At settlement the parties could not agree whether this disbursement was reasonable and brought the matter before the Court.  District Registrar Cameron held that while having an MRI was reasonable, there was no evidence justifying the expense to be privately incurred.  In dismissing the claimed disbursement the Court provided the following reasons:
[5]             While the medical evidence that I was referred to satisfies me that obtaining an MRI examination in this case was a reasonable step to take in the Plaintiff’s interest and to assist with a determination of whether or not there was a causal link to her neck, upper back, and lower back injuries and the motor vehicle accident, I am not satisfied that it was reasonable to incur the additional expense to have the MRI examination done in the private healthcare system.  I may have been persuaded it was reasonable to do so if, in fact, there was evidence that there was going to be an ongoing and significant delay in having the MRI examination done in the public healthcare system, but that evidence was not before me.
[6]             For these reasons, the disbursement will be disallowed.

Physician's Evidence Rejeced for Lack of "An Open Mind" Regarding Collision Related Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archived judicial comments about expert witness evidence that is judicially rejected, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for an L4/5 disc injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In this week’s case (Sekihara v. Gill) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  Although liability was denied the Defendant was found 100% responsible for the crash.   In the course of the trial the Defendant relied on an orthopedic surgeon who blamed some of the Plaintiff’s persisting symptoms not on the collision but instead on “deconditioning, her recent pregnancy and weight gain” and pre-existing conditions.
The Court rejected this evidence finding the plaintiff, who was a former professional athlete, suffered an L4/5 disc injury in the crash which was responsible for her persisting symptoms and assessed non-pecuniary damages at $130,000.  In rejecting the defence medical evidence the Court provided the following criticism:
[160]     On behalf of the plaintiff, it is submitted that Dr. Grypma’s opinion should be given no weight for the following reasons:
1.     He took what can only be described as a cursory history from Ms. Sekihara;
2.     he made a number of editorial comments in the section titled “medical records review” which were not identified as being his own comments;
3.     in that same section he left out salient facts which tended to support Ms. Sekihara’s complaints;
4.     also in that section, if he was unable to read handwriting, he simply left those sections out of his summary without stating that he had done so; and
5.     he was evasive at times in his oral testimony.
[161]     I agree with the plaintiff’s submissions regarding Dr. Grypma.  In his evidence, Dr. Grypma does not appear to have demonstrated an open mind in his examination of and conclusions regarding Ms. Sekihara or to have taken into account the complete medical history.
[162]     Most importantly, Dr. Grypma’s opinion that the enduring complaints of back pain are related to any of the four unrelated conditions is inconsistent with the evidence of Ms. Sekihara and of the objective evidence of the tear of the annulus fibrosis. 
[163]     Ms. Sekihara, as a snowboarder and professional athlete, many times per day for years, would load her spine with at least 3 times her body weight every time she made a jump with no back pain.  I do not accept Dr. Grypma’s evidence that it is coincidental that she suffered back pain immediately following the motor vehicle accident due to degeneration or a previously existing pars defect. 
[164]      It was Ms. Sekihara’s inability to pursue her regular activities due to her back pain which caused the deconditioning, not vice versa.  Ms. Sekihara had ongoing low back pain long before she became pregnant.  The pars defect was congenital and the degenerative changes longstanding. 
[165]     The characterisation of the low back injury is the major issue.  I prefer the evidence of Dr. Hershler who diagnosed it as a disc injury at L4/5.  His conclusions are based on his interpretation of the imaging, his examinations, and on Ms. Sekihara’s reporting of her symptoms, both pre and post-accident.