Uncategorized – Page 5 – BC INJURY LAW

$99,000 Award Ordered After BC Store Owner Offers Employee Cash For Sex

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on December 1, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

An employer offered an employee cash for sex. She declined. The employer subsequently fired her. The complainant initiated a Human Rights action where the Tribunal found improper sexual harrassment took place and ordered nearly $99,000 in total damages.

In the recent case (Ms. K v. Deep Creek Store and another, 2021 BCHRT 158) the Tribunal made the following broad findings of fact:

In this case Ms. K was 21 years old when Mr. Joung hired her to work for him at his
convenience store. As Ms. K’s much older, male boss, Mr. Joung misused his power to sexually
harass Ms. K. When Ms. K attempted to resist this sexual harassment, Mr. Joung made matters
far worse by creating a hostile work environment, and then firing Ms. K. After Ms. K filed a
human rights complaint related to this treatment, Mr. Joung set out to harass and intimidate
her by trespassing at her home in the middle of the night.

The Tribunal found the following legal wrongs were proven:

“Biased” ICBC Expert Report Excluded From Evidence

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 30, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were recently published by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering that an ICBC expert’s report was biased and not admissible at trial.

In the recent case (Didyuk v. Redlick) the Plaintiff was involved in three motor vehicle accidents and was claiming damages. In the course of the lawsuits ICBC used their power to send the plaintiff to an independent medical exam. This resulted in their expert authoring a report making numerous negative comments about the plaintiff’s credibility. In finding that expert was outright biased and not allowing the report into evidence Madam Justice Ahmad provided the following reasons:

Welcome To Our Team Jessica!

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 26, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

MacIsaac & Company is pleased to announce the latest addition to our team of litigators!

Jessica is an experienced trial lawyer specializing in civil sexual assault claims. She has exclusively represented plaintiffs since the start of her career. She has appeared in all levels of court in BC. Jessica is an empathetic advocate who is inspired by the power and courage of her clients. She works with her clients to explore out of court resolutions when appropriate, but she is also a fierce and passionate litigator who truly enjoys going to court to advocate for her clients’ rights.

Jessica is the latest lawyer to join MacIsaac & Company’s “80% Associate Counsel Career” serving clients Province wide from Vancouver.

We are aggressively expanding under this unique program. Not limited to injury lawyers. We are looking for –

Family lawyers

Immigration lawyers

Employment lawyers

Criminal lawyers

Mediators/Arbitrators

Estate Litigators

And more. If you think you would be a good fit with our rapidly growing firm contact us today!

$650,000 Damage Assessment Following Assault and Battery

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 22, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering two defendants to pay over $650,000 in damages following an unprovoked attack.

In this week’s case (Andrews v. Shelemey) the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants “came to his residence on August 3, 2015, as a result of a dispute concerning a transmission repair that Mr. Andrews had completed on Mr. Shelemey’s vehicle in late 2014 or early 2015. He says that without provocation, Mr. Shelemey and Mr. Leveque wrongfully and intentionally assaulted him resulting in serious injuries including a fractured sternum, soft tissue injuries to his back, rib fractures, a fractured lumbar vertebra, a broken tooth and various lacerations, bruises and contusions.”.

Despite the defendants denying fault the court found the unprovoked attack took place and held the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the damages. In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Mayer provided the following reasons:

Welcome Edith and Nigel, MacIsaac & Company’s Newest “80% Associate Counsel”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 10, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Earlier this year we proudly launched our “80% Associate Counsel” career opportunity welcoming new talent to MacIsaac & Company under one of the more progressive arrangements in the legal industry.

We are pleased to welcome our first two associate counsel joining our firm under this arrangement. Edith Lau, who will help expand our firm’s practice into immigration law and wills & estates and Nigel Elliott, who will be our first associate based out of Vancouver and will help grow our firm’s human rights and estate litigation practices.

You can read their full bio’s at our website and click here for more information about our 80% Associate Counsel Career!

Welcome Canadian Lawyer Magazine Readers

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 10, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Earlier this month I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Canadian Lawyer Magazine about BC’s latest, one sided, and possibly unconstitutional limit on plaintiff disbursements in ICBC claims.

You can find the full article here.

If you are visiting for the first time welcome! You can read my further thoughts on this topic with a link to reasons for judgement at my past article here.

Court Comments on “Disproportionate Burden” Of ICBC 6% Disbursement Regulation

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 13, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Earlier this year a regulation came into force artificially limiting the recoverable disbursements in many motor vehicle actions to 6% of the damages. The government made little effort in disguising that this rule was brought in to save a single litigant money, namely ICBC.

In one of the first judicial comments on the regulation the Court noted that this rule places a disproportionate burden on plaintiff’s in proving their claims.

In today’s case (Zhang v. Scrott) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2018 collision (predating the retroactive regulation) and sued for damages. In advancing his claim the Plaintiff noted his disbursements may exceed the 6% cap. The Defendant applied for a defence medical exam. The Plaintiff argued this should be denied because if granted the plaintiff may need responsive evidence which would then result in further disbursements beyond the recoverable cap.

The Court, while granting the application, noted with a more fulsome record a litigant may succeed in arguing that the cap “upsets the balance of fairness and equality. In an appropriate case, it might be argued that the limit on recoverable disbursements weighs against an additional IME by the defence.”

In granting the application but noting the regulation’s disproportionate burden Master Elwood provided the following reasons:

Pandemic Did Not “Frustrate” Employment Contract Entitling Employee to Wrongful Dismissal Damages

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 5, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, which could help shed some light on a situation many are facing following this pandemic. Whether the pandemic amounted to a frustration in a specific employment relationship.

In the recent case (Verigen v. Ensemble Travel Ltd) the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in a travel industry related job. When Covid hit the Defendant terminated her position. They acknowledged they had no cause for doing so but argued the pandemic amounted to a ‘frustration’ of the employment contract. In disagreeing that the contract was frustrated and finding the Plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of five months notice Mr. Justice Milman provided the following reasons:

Alberta Recognizes Tort for Non Consensual Sexual Image Sharing

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on September 21, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

In what I believe is the first case in Alberta recognizing the tort of “Public Disclosure of Private Facts” a Court adopted this tort and awarded significant damages following the non-consensual publication of private sexual images.

In the recent case (ES v. Shillingham) the parties were involved in an intimate relationship. Of the course of the relationship the Plaintiff shared sexual images with the Defendant “as a private gift to him.” and on the understanding that “he would not distribute these images in any way.“. Despite this he chose to share these images on the internet over the years.

In recognizing a new tort and assessing damages to address this wrongdoing Justice Avril Inglis provided the following reasons:

Plaintiff Has No Obligation To Acquire and Disclose Clinical Records Defence Want

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on August 31, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

Earlier this year the BC Government passed a law (whose legality is being challenged) arbitrarily capping disbursements at 6% in “vehicle injury proceedings”. Artificially capping disbursements requires plaintiffs to use great caution in what disbursements they incur in advancing their claims. This in turn often means limited record production. Defence frequently are now displeased wishing for more records to scrutinize and are met with resistance due to this rule.

With this context in mind the BC Supreme Court recently reminded litigants that there is no obligation for plaintiff’s to obtain records on defence counsel’s wish list. If the records are relevant, obtained and in the possession or control of the plaintiff they must be listed and disclosed accordingly. However, if they are true third party records, such as hospital charts, plaintiffs have no obligation to obtain these and defence must bring proper application with notice to the record holders for production (and most importantly be prepared to shoulder the disbursements themselves).

In the recent case (Choy v. Stimpson) the Defendants wished for clinical records documenting an injury the plaintiff sustained which could be relevant to the lawsuit in question. They asked the plaintiff to disclose these records even though the plaintiff did not have them in his possession. In dismissing the application and reminding counsel that the Plaintiff has no obligation to obtain records the defence wishes for the Court provided the following reasons: