Skip to main content

My 2012 Clawbies Nominations

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 100 Comments on My 2012 Clawbies Nominations


It’s that time of year again.  The Canadian Law Blog Awards (the Clawbies), are awarded once a year to recognize outstanding Canadian legal blogs.  The nomination process involves peer endorsement and from there a select number of blogs are chosen for recognition.
The decision makers include Steve Matthews, author of the Law Firm Web Strategy Blog who, if he keeps up the good work, may just give law firm marketers a good name.  Jordan Furlong of Law 21, who has no shortage of wisdom for lawyers reminding us that we must provide our services in a competitive and beneficial way otherwise learn that we may not be as irreplaceable as we may think.  And last but not least, Simon Fodden who is the godfather of the most successful Canadian legal blog, Slaw.
My first nomination is not a blog.  So much for following directions.   Eugene Meehan’s Supreme Court of Canada newsletter is the source to follow for keeping appraised of all developments at the Supreme Court of Canada.  You can find it and subscribe to it here.  I figure it being a newsletter instead of a blog is a mere formality the powers that be should overlook.
Next, sticking in my neck of the woods, I’d like to nominate Dye and Durhams’ BC Law Watch for providing current, useful information  on all things law related in BC.
Lastly David Bilinsky, the man who brought me into the world of Blawgging deserves yet another nod.  It would be a shame if his streak of 5 consecutive years of Clawbies recognition came to an end.
OK, lastly for a second time, another shout out to the always outspoken Antonin Pribetic for not only his comprehensive posts but for never  being shy of picking a fight in his Trial Warrior Blog and advancing clear and authoritative positions in a sometimes bland ‘happysphere‘.
 

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Moderately Severe Tinnitus

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


Tinnitus, a subjective perception of non-existant sound, is a consequence sometimes seen following a motor vehicle collision.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for such a condition.
In this week’s case (Yang v. Chan) the plaintiff was struck as a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk in 2007.  Fault was admitted for the crash.  The Plaintiff sufferd various soft tissue injuries but these largely settled down in the months following the crash.  What persisted was moderately severe tinnitus, a symptom that was expected to linger indefinatley.  The Court accepted this and assessed non-pecuniary damages at $60,000.  In arriving at this assessment Madam Justice Wedge provided the following reasons:
[62]         I accept the evidence of Dr. Longridge that Mr. Yang’s tinnitus was caused by the accident. According to Dr. Longridge, given the proximity of the onset of the condition to the accident, it is most unlikely that there is any other cause. Further, the tinnitus is moderately severe which, Dr. Longridge testified, is capable of significantly diminishing one’s enjoyment of life. It is a condition Mr. Yang will likely have to live with for the rest of his life.
[63]         Taking into account the pain and disruption suffered by Mr. Yang due to his soft tissue injuries in the first six months after the accident, together with the ongoing tinnitus condition which is unlikely to resolve and will continue to interfere with his enjoyment of life, I have concluded that an appropriate award of damages for non-pecuniary loss is $60,000.

Hit and Run Identity Obligations Don't Require a Motorist to Go on "A Fool's Errand"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 56 Comments on Hit and Run Identity Obligations Don't Require a Motorist to Go on "A Fool's Errand"

I have written numerous times about ICBC hit and run claims and a Plaintiff’s obligation to make ‘all reasonable efforts’ to identify an unknown motorist prior to being able to successfully sue ICBC for damages.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, further addressing this obligation.
In this week’s case (Akbari v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 collision in which he struck a light pole.  The Plaintiff alleged an unknown motorist ran a red light forcing him to take evasive action in the agony of collision.  This motorist fled the scene.  Madam Justice Baker accepted this and found that an unidentified driver did indeed cause the collision.
ICBC argued that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because he failed to make all reasonable efforts to identify the motorist after the fact.  The steps ICBC suggested included staking out the intersection to try and see the vehicle on a subsequent occasion and interviewing residents at a nearby townhouse complex.  Madam Justice Baker found these suggestions to be nothing more than a ‘fool’s errand’ that would be fruitless.  In finding the Plaintiff’s actions reasonable the Court provided the following reasons:
[61]         I am satisfied that Mr. Akbari did make all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver in the circumstances that pertained here.  Mr. Akbari’s vehicle could not be driven and he was injured and in pain; he could hardly be expected to attempt to pursue the southbound vehicle on foot.  Mr. Akbari told the attending police officer ? Constable Da Silva ? that another vehicle had been involved and he provided a description of the vehicle as a light-colored – white or silver – small car.  Mr. Perez confirmed the involvement of the other vehicle and the description.  Constable Da Silva obviously considered there to be little or no prospect of locating the suspect vehicle even minutes after it had left the scene; he did make any effort to do so, or to alert other patrol cars to search for the vehicle.
[62]         Mr. Akbari recalls having inquired of Messrs. Shiles at the scene to find out if they had seen the vehicle that crossed his path.  The accident was reported to the defendant as a “hit and run” within two hours after the collision happened.  Both Mr. Akbari and his father provided statements to ICBC.  Upon learning from his counsel of his obligation to attempt to ascertain the identity of the driver who left the scene, Mr. Akbari posted a sign at the intersection asking any witnesses to come forward.  If any part of Mr. Chinchilla’s testimony is to be believed, it is that he saw the sign on the past at the intersection, and it was that sign that prompted him to contact ICBC and, eventually, Mr. Akbari’s counsel.
[63]         Mr. Akbari also contacted Constable Da Silva a few days after the accident and asked whether there was a traffic camera at the intersection where the accident happened.  Constable Da Silva said if there was a camera, it likely took only one photo ? when the light turned green ? but he said he would check and get back to Mr. Akbari.  It was reasonable for Mr. Akbari to assume that there was no camera ? or no useful footage ? when he heard nothing further from Constable Da Silva.
[64]         When Mr. Akbari realized that Ms. Berry did not know about Mr. Chinchilla and his claim to have witnessed the collision, he made sure that Ms. Berry was provided with the phone number he had for Mr. Chinchilla.
[65]         Counsel for the defendant suggested to Mr. Akbari that he should have canvassed the residents of the townhouse complex located near the intersection to search for possible witnesses, but I consider that would have been a fool’s errand.  The photographs of the scene indicate that the townhouse complex is some distance off the roadway and that it is highly unlikely that anyone in the townhouse complex would have been able to see anything happening in the intersection, particularly late at night, when it was dark and raining.  The resident who did call to report the collision only did so because she heard the sound of the crash.
[66]         Counsel also suggested that Mr. Akbari could have staked out the intersection to see if he could spot the vehicle that crossed his path.  Again, this would have been fruitless, I conclude, as neither he nor Mr. Perez was able to recall anything more specific than the fact that the other vehicle was a light-colored small car.
[67]         To summarize, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the accident was caused by the negligent actions of an unidentified driver who entered the intersection from 84th Avenue against a red light; and drove across Nordel, cutting off Mr. Akbari’s vehicle when it was so close to the intersection as to pose an immediate hazard.  I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Akbari did not fail to meet the standard of care required of a reasonably prudent motorist when he swerved to avoid colliding with the vehicle crossing his path.
[68]         I am also satisfied that Mr. Akbari made all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver; and that the unknown driver’s identity is not ascertainable.

Tractor-Trailer Driver Not Negligent for Entering Left Lane To Make Wide Right Turn

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 108 Comments on Tractor-Trailer Driver Not Negligent for Entering Left Lane To Make Wide Right Turn


Large commercial vehicles sometimes have to make wide turns.  In some circumstances it is necessary for such motorists to move out of the curb lane before executing such a turn.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing a collision occurring during such a maneuver.
In last week’s case (Steward v. Dueck) the Plaintiff was travelling the in the ‘fast’ lane.  Ahead of her in the curb lane was “a very large commercial vehicle“.  The commercial vehicle started a right hand turn by first signalling, checking that traffic was a safe distance behind him, crossing into the fast lane and beginning his wide turn.  During this time the Plaintiff collided with the trailer unit.  The Plaintiff sued for damages but the claim was dismissed.  The Court found the commercial driver was not negligent   In dismissing the claim Madam Justice Dardi made the following findings:
[25]         Prior to initiating his turn, Mr. Dueck described that he first checked the traffic. He was satisfied that he could safely initiate his manoeuvre, as the traffic was a safe distance behind him. He then signaled a left turn and moved from the slow or curb lane into the fast lane. He blocked the lanes by crossing the dotted dividing line. He then turned his Unit into and through the left turn lane to make his turn. He says he never had his Unit entirely in the left turn lane but rather, he turned his Unit through the lane in “an arc”. He described his turning manoeuvre, which he says he executes routinely, as being designed to discourage other drivers from passing him on either side while he is executing his turn…
[35]         Ms. Stewart does not take issue with Mr. Dueck’s assertion that the turning manoeuvre he undertook was appropriate for executing a right-turn at this particular Intersection. Rather, Ms. Stewart’s essential contention is that Mr. Dueck should have slowed down or stopped before initiating his right turn so that he could have first ascertained Ms. Stewart’s position. Her counsel disputes that Mr. Dueck activated his four-way flashers.  In any case, if it is found that Mr. Dueck did activate his four-way flashers Ms. Stewart argues that this did not constitute sufficient warning of his manoeuvre…
[55]         In my view, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Ms. Stewart failed to exercise due care in all of the circumstances. A reasonable driver in her position would have been put on notice that she should proceed with caution. Mr. Dueck’s 72-foot Unit with 14 flashing lights proceeding at 15 kph was clearly there to be seen. Contrary to the assertions of Ms. Stewart’s counsel, such a large vehicle “does not turn suddenly.” Ms. Stewart did not testify that she was watching the Unit and that Mr. Dueck failed to activate his four-way flashers or the right turn signal. She merely says that she did not observe his four-way flashers or the right turn signal. Had she been paying due care and attention to the roadway ahead of her, the operational flashing signals of his Unit – seven signal lights located at intervals down the length of each side of the Unit – would have been clearly visible to her. The four-way flashers and right turn signal would have been fully visible from the rear and passenger side of the Unit.
[56]         The Supreme Court of Canada in Swartz Bros. Limited v. Wills, [1935] S.C.R. 628 at 634, endorsed the notion that: “[W]here there is nothing to obstruct the vision and there is a duty to look, it is negligence not to see what is clearly visible.” See also Millot Estate v. Reinhard, 2001 ABQB 1100 at para. 46. This principle has application to this case…
[65]         The only reasonable inference is that Ms. Stewart was not paying due care and attention as she was approaching the Intersection.
[66]         I find that Ms. Stewart bears the onus of proving negligence. In my view, she has failed to discharge her burden of proof. I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the accident was attributable to any want of care on Mr. Dueck’s part. I find Ms. Stewart entirely at fault for the accident. Moreover, Ms. Stewart has failed to prove any negligence on Mr. Dueck’s part for the second impact she says occurred as Mr. Dueck backed up his Unit to clear the Intersection. I find that Mr. Dueck acted reasonably in the circumstances. In reaching my conclusions, I have considered the entire body of evidence and, in my view, it best harmonizes with the preponderance of the probabilities.

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Grade II Soft Tissue Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archived posts documenting BC soft tissue injury non-pecuniary assessments, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, dealing with a chronic Grade II Whiplash Injury.
In this week’s case (Strazza v. Ryder) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2009 rear-end collision.  He suffered soft tissue damage to his neck and mid back.  His symptoms of pain, while “not debilitating” continued to the time of trial and caused him to reduce or modify his daily activities   His symptoms were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:
[67]         Mr. Strazza himself reports that he continues to experience pain.  It is not debilitating, and Mr. Strazza has not claimed that it is.  It has not prevented him from working or doing household chores or working on his car.  As Mr. Strazza describes it, he can basically do everything he did before the accident, but with pain.  Mr. Strazza describes his situation as one where he works and carries on despite his pain symptoms, which he does his best to alleviate by taking over-the-counter medications or by calling on someone to help.  As a result of his pain symptoms, Mr. Strazza has modified some of his activities, both leisure and work-related, since the accident.  Friends – Ms. Miller and Ms. Goalder – gave evidence of their observations in this respect, and their evidence supported Mr. Strazza’s.  The changes in Mr. Strazza are not drastic, but they are changes nevertheless…
[72]         More generally, I found Mr. Strazza to be forthright and a credible witness.  He spoke plainly and did not exaggerate.  He had no difficulty and no hesitation conceding points that were not necessarily in his favour, for example, that working for Madill was just not for him.  On cross-examination, Mr. Strazza was the opposite of defensive or argumentative, which allowed the cross-examination (by very experienced counsel) to proceed smoothly and efficiently.
[73]         I therefore find that, as a result of the accident, Mr. Strazza sustained soft tissue injuries to his cervical spine and his thoracic spine.  Specifically, and as set out in Dr. MacKean’s February 8, 2012 report, I find that Mr. Strazza sustained a grade II whiplash associated disorder in the cervical spine, which (as of trial) was resolving and a grade II whiplash associated disorder in his thoracic spine with residual pain and muscle spasm involving the left mid to lower thoracic region.  Based on Mr. Strazza’s evidence (supported by the evidence from Ms. Miller and Ms. Goalder), he continues to experience some pain as a result of his injuries.  I therefore find, based on this evidence and the opinion evidence from Dr. MacKean, that Mr. Strazza’s pain symptoms will probably not resolve completely, although they can be improved with a regular exercise program and pain relief can be obtained through occasional use of over-the-counter medication…
[81]         Taking into account Mr. Strazza’s age, the effect of Mr. Strazza’s injuries on his day-to-day activities and on his lifestyle in general, including on his career goals, Dr. MacKean’s prognosis that the pain is unlikely to resolve completely, and the cases that have been cited to me, I assess Mr. Strazza’s non-pecuniary damages at $60,000.

Late Plaintiff Testimony Does Not Result In Adverse Inference in Injury Claim

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

In my ongoing efforts to track judicial commentary of late plaintiff testimony in injury litigation, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, further addressing this practice.
In this week’s case (Ram v. Rai) the Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end collision.  At trial her mother and sister testified before she did.  The Defendant argued that the Court should draw an adverse inference in these circumstances.  Mr. Justice Holmes refused to do so but provided the following comments addressing the practice of late plaintiff testimony:
[36]         A plaintiff is free to call her witnesses in the order she and her counsel choose.  However, I agree with the defendants that for a plaintiff to testify after hearing other witnesses testify may affect the weight that can be given to the plaintiff’s own evidence about matters the earlier witnesses addressed.  It may be difficult for the trier of fact to be confident that the plaintiff’s account of events is her own, and is not coloured by or adapted to the preceding evidence. 
[37]         I note also that it may be difficult for the trier of fact to appreciate and assess the full import of the evidence of supplementary witnesses without having first seen and heard the plaintiff herself in the witness stand.  However, that observation relates to a matter of practice or effective advocacy, and not to one of law, evidence, or civil procedure. 
[38]         Madam Justice Humphries discussed these problems at greater length in Gustafson v. Davis, 2012 BCSC 1576 at paras. 112-116.
[39]         Mindful of the potential dangers in the sequence of witnesses in this trial, I find the situation to be a relatively unusual one in which I can be fully confident that Ms. Ram’s evidence was not contaminated in any way by her having heard her mother and her sister give evidence before her.
[40]         The three witnesses gave accounts of the collision and its effects on Ms. Ram, apparent or felt as the case may be, that were consistent with each other in their broad outline but which each spoke clearly and convincingly from the witness’s own perspective.  The mother and the sister testified about what they saw, while Ms. Ram testified about what she felt. 
[41]         For example, Ms. Ram’s mother testified in general terms that after the accident Ms. Ram spent much more time alone in her room.  Ms. Ram in her testimony did not describe her conduct in quite the same way.  She testified that after the accident she felt generally unwell and could not keep up with her usual activities, friends, school, and work.  Sometimes her headaches were bad and she would need to stay alone in a dark room.  These were not identical accounts, but they described the same response from different perspectives.
[42]         In another example, Ms. Ram’s sister testified that Ms. Ram’s posture was affected by the accident.  She testified that Ms. Ram would tend to stoop, and as she began to recover the sister would often touch Ms. Ram on the nose to remind her to straighten up.  Ms. Ram made no mention of stooping or her sister touching her nose, and referred only in passing to her posture as an aspect of the consequences of her back pain.  Ms. Ram’s evidence was in no way inconsistent with her sister’s, but spoke of the pain she herself felt, rather than the stooping the sister saw.
[43]         To my observation, when Ms. Ram had no personal knowledge about a matter, she said so; she did not borrow from the testimony she had heard her mother or her sister give shortly before.  For example, Ms. Ram testified that she did not know whether the impact of the collision had moved the Ram car forward.  She had been in the courtroom when her mother testified earlier during the same day that the impact moved the car forward by between 3 and 6 feet, shifting it into the intersection.
[44]         In short, I found each of Ms. Ram and her mother and her sister to be impressive and entirely credible witnesses.  While I have carefully considered the implications of the order in which they gave their testimony, I find no indication at all that Ms. Ram’s evidence was affected by her mother and sister having testified before she did.

"Mere Possibility" of Pre-Existing Injury Not Sufficient To Justify Document Disclosure Request

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, further judicially shaping document disclosure obligations under the new rules of court.
In last week’s case (Bains v. Hookstra) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2009 motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff agreed to produce his MSP Printout, Pharmanet Records and WCB records from the time of the crash onwards.  The Defendant was not satisfied with this timeframe and sought these records from before the collision.  In support of their application the Defendant produced evidence that the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions in the year prior to the accident at issue in the lawsuit.  The Defendant plead that there was a pre-existing injury but the Court noted this was done in a “very pro-forma way“.
Master Muir ultimately rejected the application finding that evidence of previous collisions leads to no more than “mere speculation” of a pre-existing injury.  In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:
[14]         The applicant must demonstrate a connection between the documents sought and the issues beyond a “mere possibility”: Przybysz v. Crowe, 2011 BCSC 731 at para. 45, referencing Gorse v. Straker, 2010 BCSC 119 at para. 53, and, as was noted by Master Bouck in Edwards v. Ganzer, 2012 BCSC 138, at para. 51, “there must be some ‘air of reality’ between the documents and the issues in the action ….”
[15]         The plaintiff has clearly denied that he was suffering from any pre-existing injury at the time of the accident in question or for two years prior. He has further denied that he made any WCB claim during that two-year period.
[16]         The evidence put forward by the defendant does no more than raise the mere possibility of a prior existing condition. In the circumstances of the plaintiff’s denial, that evidence is insufficient to warrant an order for the production of the documents sought.
[17]         The defendant’s application is therefore dismissed

Substitution Orders in ICBC Hit and Run Claims are "Mandatory in Their Nature"

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 111 Comments on Substitution Orders in ICBC Hit and Run Claims are "Mandatory in Their Nature"

Last year I questioned the correctness of reasons for judgement which refused to make a substitutional order in an ICBC Claim involving an unidentified motorist.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court,  Chilliwack Registry  further addressing this area of the law finding that substitution orders are mandatory once the identity of an unidentified motorist becomes ascertained.
In this week’s case (McStravick v. Metzler) the Mr. Metzler and Ms. McStravick were occupants of a motorcycle involved in a serious collision.  An allegation was made that an unidentified motorist caused the collision.  ICBC was named as a nominal defendant under section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.
Evidence disclosed on the eve of trial and trough witnesses during trial gave rise to identifying the unknown motorist.  The Plaintiff brought an application to substitute this person for ICBC in the lawsuit.  The motorist and ICBC vigorously oppose the application.  Mr. Justice Blok ordered the substitution and in doing so provided reasons highlighting the mandatory nature of Section 24(6) of the Insurance Vehicle Act.  The Court provided the following reasons:
[53]         I would observe at the outset that s. 24(6) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act is mandatory in nature.  If the identity of the driver is ascertained then that person must be added as a defendant in substitution for ICBC.  The factors applicable to cases where parties are being added under the Supreme Court Civil Rules therefore have no application: Tse v. ICBC (1996), 24 B.C.L.R. (3d) 394 (S.C.).
[54]         While counsel for Ms. Sidwell concedes that the Court probably does not have jurisdiction to refuse to substitute an ascertained defendant in place of ICBC, he said that conditions may be specified, as expressly provided by s. 24(6).  However, counsel did not suggest any conditions that might be appropriate, short of refusing the application altogether.  Given the mandatory language of the section, a refusal cannot be a condition.
[55]         The mandatory language of the section also limits, and probably eliminates, any scope for the application of the equitable principle of estoppel insofar as applying the estoppel principle would operate to defeat the intent and effect of the section.
[56]         Even if there might still be some room for estoppel to operate, I am not satisfied that estoppel has been made out on the facts of this case.  Ms. Sidwell submits that as a result of the “shared assumption” of all counsel that she was not the unknown driver, she ceased being represented by counsel and did not take part in the trial.  What that submission fails to address is the fact that (1) the substitution application can be made at any time prior to judgment being granted, and (2) her interests were represented throughout by ICBC as nominal defendant.  As to the former, since s. 24(6) allows for a substitution application to be made at any time prior to judgment, a trial might well be completed before an application is made and with no hint of it beforehand.  Here, Ms. Sidwell had two years or more of advance notice and she had representation by counsel during that time.  In addition to her own counsel, counsel for ICBC represented the interests of the unknown driver, whoever that might have been, and thus in some respects at least she had two lawyers representing her interests until shortly before trial.
[57]         Ms. Sidwell complains that she was deprived of taking part in the trial, but until she was made a party she would have had no standing to take part.  She points to no prejudice associated with the fact that her interests, at least her interests in a general sense, were represented by counsel for ICBC instead of her own counsel.
[58]         Further, I do not consider that an estoppel against ever bringing a substitution application arises in this case.  Counsel for the plaintiff Metzler submits that while the last-minute disclosure of the Sidwell and Popovich witness statements revived the possibility that the plaintiffs would bring a substitution application – a possibility that counsel expressly stated at the outset of the trial – it was not until those witnesses had given evidence and their evidence tested in cross-examination that they considered the plaintiffs had a sufficient basis on which to bring the application.  In these circumstances I consider this approach to have been reasonable and prudent.  However, ICBC and Ms. Sidwell argue that the plaintiff Metzler is bound by his counsel’s letter so as to foreclose any possibility of a successful substitution application.  This would mean that even if Ms. Sidwell had expressly admitted at trial that her driving was the cause of the accident the defendants could not have substituted her as defendant in ICBC’s stead.  That cannot be correct.
[59]         Finally, there is an additional difficulty in applying an estoppel here in any event because the primary facts asserted as giving rise to an estoppel apply only to the plaintiff Metzler and not to the plaintiff McStravick.  The most that can be said in regards to Ms. McStravick is that her counsel attended a trial management conference at which the judge was told that the application was not being brought.  Only in Mr. Metzler’s case was a letter written, in arguably more definitive terms.  This leaves the unsatisfactory possibility that Ms. Sidwell might be substituted as a defendant in one case but not the other.  Fortunately I do not have to address this difficulty because I conclude that even on the strongest facts that are alleged an estoppel of the type and scope asserted does not arise.

BC's New Rules of Court Don't Trump Solicitor's Brief Privilege

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 5, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized. 148 Comments on BC's New Rules of Court Don't Trump Solicitor's Brief Privilege

Earlier this year I highlighted two  judgements (here and here) discussing that the New Rules of Court don’t allow the Court to override solicitor’s privilege.  Further reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, confirming this principle.
In the recent case (Nowe v. Bowerman) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 motor vehicle collision and sued for damages.  The Defendant set down a Case Planning Conference asking for an order that “Plaintiff’s counsel advise the defence of the areas of expertise of his proposed experts“.
Madam Justice Dickson dismissed this request finding it would infringe on solicitor’s brief privilege.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:
[10]  The area of expertise of an intended expert witness is a matter of trial strategy.  Trial strategy is a key component of a solicitor’s brief.  It may well evolve as plaintiff’s counsel builds a case and makes decisions based upon a myriad of factors and considerations.  Intentions may change as the process unfolds over time.
[11]  In my view, unless and until the intention to rely upon a particular expert in a particular field is declared by delivery of a report in accordance with the timelines established by the Rules, in the absence of a compelling reason an early incursion into this aspect of the solicitor’s brief will not be justified.
[12]  That being said, there may well be cases in which a departure from the usual timelines can be justified.  For example, in complex cases such as those involving brain injuries as a matter of fairness it may be necessary to provide defence counsel with a longer period than would be available under the usual regime in order to schedule appointments with certain kinds of experts.  In this case, however, I am unable to identify such a compelling reason.  In these circumstances, I decline to make the order sought.
To my knowledge these reasons for judgement are not publicly available but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.

Negligent Commercial Bus Driver Escapes Liability Due to Waiver of Liability; Legislative Intervention Required?

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


 
UPDATE  – April 30, 2014 – The below decision was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal
I have previously discussed the real world consequences of waivers of liability and the fact that these can strip people seriously injured through the fault of others of meaningful legal recourse.   Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, creating a troubling precedent allowing such a waiver to stand in the context of a motor vehicle collision claim.
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 dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.  In doing so Mr. Justice Armstrong provided the following reasons:
[80]         In my view, the Release is a clear and relatively easy to read document. Although some of the print is small, large capitalized portions of the Release draw attention to the important features of safety, assumption of risks, release of liability and waiver of claims. A reasonable person would recognize the purpose and extent of the document, including the connection between the release and travel to and from the tour site.
[81]         I have concluded that the defendants were not obliged to point out the waiver clauses, with specific reference to the bus transportation to and from the tour site. There were no distinct features of the bus trip as opposed to the other zip line activities that should have been brought to the plaintiff’s attention…
[93]         I have considerable sympathy for the plaintiff due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The plaintiff is entitled to some benefit as an insured person under Part VII of the Act. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages due to the defendants’ negligence because she surrendered that right when agreeing to the waiver and release of all claims as a condition of being permitted to use the defendants’ zip line facility.
This is a troubling finding and can pave the way for commercial vehicle operators requiring customers to sign waivers of liability in essence shielding these operators in the face of negligently caused injuries.  Mr. Justice Armstrong held such a result “is not contrary to public policy“.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:
92]         However, in this case, the Release does not impact public policy or the statutory automobile insurance scheme. This Release deals only with the plaintiff’s right to recover damages from the defendants caused by the defendants’ negligence. The statutory scheme is not engaged until there has been a determination, or settlement, of a complainant’s entitlement to money as compensation for injury suffered as a result of the negligence. In my view, the plaintiff’s argument does not engage a debate about public policy.
I understand the decision is being appealed and I will author a follow up post after the Appellate Court addresses this issue.
Assuming, however, that this result is correct it is one which clearly calls out for legislative intervention.  If the law requires motorists to carry Third Party liability coverage to ensure those injured through their carelessness have recourse to damages the law should not permit waivers to apply to strip innocent individuals of this statutorily required protection.