Skip to main content

Landlord Found Vicariously Liable For Assault By Their Relative

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 184 Comments on Landlord Found Vicariously Liable For Assault By Their Relative


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with the issue of vicarious liability following an assault.
In this week’s case (Van Hartevelt v. Grewal) the Plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation with the Defendant R. Grewal.  While there were competing versions of what occurred Mr. Justice Savage found that this Defendant pummelled the Plaintiff “with his fists…sending him to the ground” then “kicked (the Plaintiff) forcefully in the ribs as he lay on the floor“.
The Defendant was found liable and ordered to pay over $65,000 in damages including punitive damages.
The Defendant was the son of the owners of the Rani Lynn Apartments which is where the altercation took place.  The Plaintiff was a tenant there.  The Plaintiff also sued the owners arguing they ought to be found vicariously liable for the assault.  Mr. Justice Savage agreed and found the owners jointly and severally liable (except for the punitive damage award).  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons illustrating that vicarious liability can flow beyond a formal employer/employee relationship:
[52] I accept Mr. G. Grewal’s evidence that he did not charge family members rent while they were living at the Randi Lynn.  However, he did not charge rent to Mr. R. Grewal, and at other times other relatives living at the Randi Lynn on the expectation that they would perform services for him at the apartment…
[54] …As a family member receiving free rent Mr. R. Grewal was beholden to the Second Named Defendants and was expected to do their bidding at the Randi Lynn…
[64] While it is true that independent contractors will not generally attract such liability and that employees generally will, it is not the case that the employer/employee relationship is the only one that can attract vicarious liability…

[65] Therefore, the main considerations in the present case are whether the relationship was sufficiently close to justify the imposition of liability, whether the tort was sufficiently connected to the assigned tasks of the tortfeasor to be regarded as the materialization of the risks created by the enterprise, and whether the imposition of liability would satisfy the policy goals outlined in Bazley.  I answer all of these questions in the affirmative.

[66] The reason that employers are often found to be vicariously liable whereas those hiring independent contractors are not is that in the former case, the employer has created the risk and is in the best position to mitigate it.  Thus, it is both efficient and fair to impose vicarious liability.  In the present case, although it was not a typical employment relationship, the Second Named Defendants created the risk associated with Mr. R. Grewal, were or should have been aware of the risk, and were in the best position to mitigate this risk.

[67] The Second Named Defendants were aware of the violent history of Mr. R. Grewal and were aware of the recent confrontation between Mr. R. Grewal and Mr. Van Hartevelt; a confrontation that arose in the context of  Mr. R. Grewal’s role as an on-site owner representative.  As such, the risk of violent confrontations initiated by Mr. R. Grewal was caused by the enterprise of the Second Named Defendants and they were in a unique position to mitigate this risk.  They were specifically made aware of the risk by Mr. Van Hartevelt’s letter of July 12, 2006.  The fact that the Second Named Defendants did not take steps to mitigate the risk renders them blameworthy.

[68] There is also the assertion, albeit made by Mrs. R. Grewal, that the ‘owners’ of the building were entitled to enter Mr. Hartevelt’s suite.   This was made in the presence of Mr. R. Grewal.   Mr. R. Grewal, rather than correcting this misapprehension, schooled as he was in tenancy matters, remained and the events followed.

[69] In my opinion there is a sufficiently close relationship to justify the imposition of vicarious liability in this case.

Bill 44 – BC Government Taking Civil Disputes Away From Judges?

Written by admin on . Posted in Tort Reform, Uncategorized.


As previously noted, BC’s Government and Judiciary are involved in a public row with the Government accusing the Courts of being inefficient and the Judiciary responding with complaints of underfunding.  Additionally these two branches of Government are involved in litigation with the BC Court of Appeal recently upholding an order forcing the Government to produce otherwise confidential Cabinet submissions in a salary dispute with the BC Provincial Court.
Enter Bill 44.  This legislation, which just passed first reading, seeks to create “Civil Resolution Tribunals” which will run side by side with BC Courts.  Their jurisdiction is anticipated to be ever-expanding by simple Order in Council with the ability of the Government to include anything that “could be dealt with by a Claim in Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act”.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this scheme is set out in Section 20 which holds that, except in very limited circumstances, parties must “represent themselves“.  It does not take much imagination to understand that stripping people of the right to a lawyer provides a great advantage to institutional litigants.
The Government sets out that this legislation is designed to create “accessible, speedy, economical, informal, and flexible” dispute resolution.  Although these goals are laudable, on scrutiny the Government does not appear to put its money where its mouth is with Section 9 specifically exempting claims against the Government from the jurisdiction of these tribunals.
As Vaughn Palmer points out, this Bill is included in a “loaded up” legislative agenda making full scrutiny difficult with limited time.  Legislation taking disputes away from the judiciary and further stripping people of the right to representation deserves public scrutiny.  I imagine BC’s Provincial Court judges will have strong opinions on the matter as well.  Whether these are voiced remains to be seen.

Diminished Earning Capacity – Expert Fact vs Opinion

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Wage Loss, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with the admission of evidence relating to diminished earning capacity in which the Court highlights the ability of lost opportunities being proven through factual, as opposed to opinion, evidence.
In this week’s case (Fabretti v. Singh) Plaintiff was employed as a Regional Vice President at an independent financial services organization.  The Plaintiff was injured in a collision and advanced a claim for diminished earning capacity.
In the course of the claim the Plaintiff obtained a report from his employer’s National Sales Director who provided evidence with respect to the Plaintiff’s employment opportunities.  The Defendant objected to the admissibility of this report for a number of reasons.  Mr. Justice Savage ultimately held that the report was not admissible as it was not written by a ‘properly qualified expert‘.
The Court noted, however, that much of the evidence could likely be admitted simply as a matter of fact (as opposed to opinion).  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[19] In this case, the subject matter of Mr. Andruschak’s Report is the plaintiff’s future earning capacity. However, Mr. Andruschak’s experience is properly viewed as concerning the earning possibilities for RVPs at Primerica generally; his experience is not in preparing objective reports on how such earning possibilities might manifest themselves in specific individual into the future.

[20] Thus, while having firsthand knowledge and experience in RVPs’ earning potential at Primerica, based on their actual earnings, which is information that may be useful to the Court, Mr. Andruschak does not offer particular expertise in the subject matter of the Report, purporting to prepare an objective estimate of future income and thus income loss for a specific person. As such, on the basis that Mr. Andruschak does not qualify as an expert, the Report cannot be admitted on that basis.

[21] Given my findings regarding Mr. Andruschak’s qualifications as an expert, it is unnecessary for me to canvass the defendant’s arguments regarding the Report’s formal compliance with the Rules. As I have said, however, much of the information in the report is potentially relevant and germane. I will leave it to counsel to review and discuss that matter amongst themselves. If required I will make further rulings on the proposed evidence. It may be that Mr. Andruschak’s evidence would be better presented simply viva voce with the assistance of a few graphs or charts.

Multi-Disciplinary Medical Assessment Denied In ICBC UMP Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, ICBC UMP Cases, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 61 Comments on Multi-Disciplinary Medical Assessment Denied In ICBC UMP Claim

Reasons for judgement were released last week in an ICBC UMP claim dealing with multiple defence medical exams in the context of a serious injury claim.
In last week’s case (G v. ICBC) the Claimant suffered a “severe traumatic brain injury” in a 2008 collision.  The at fault motorist was underinsured and the Claimant applied for payment of damages under his own UMP coverage with ICBC.
In the course of arbitration the Plaintiff agreed to be assessed by five different physicians of ICBC’s choosing.  These included two neuropsychologists, a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a physiatrist.  ICBC then requested a further assessment, specifically a Multi-Disciplinary Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder Assessment over the course of two days.  The Claimant refused resulting in an ICBC application to compel attendance.
The parties agreed to apply the BC Supreme Court Rules in the course of the arbitration (click here to read an article discussing the lack of jurisdiction for an UMP Arbitrator to compel an independent medical exam when the BC Supreme Court Rules are not used).  In dismissing the application Arbitrator Yule canvassed some of the well known authorities considering BC Supreme Court Rule 7-6(1) and (2).  Arbitrator Yule provided the following summary of the applicable legal principles:
49…
1.  An order for a subsequent medical exam is discretionary but the discretion must be excercised judicially;
2.  Independent medical exams are granted to ensure “a reasonable equality between the parties in the preparation of a case for trial”; reasonable equality does not mean that a defendant should be able to match expert for expert or report for report;
3.  A second exam will not be allowed for the purpose of attempting to bolster an earlier opinion of another expert; there must be some question or matter that could not have been dealt with at the earlier examination; and
4.  There is a higher standard required where the Defendant seeks subsequent medical exams.
Arbitrator Yule went on to rule that the playing field was reasonably equal after five ICBC directed medical exams such that a further exam was not warranted.  He specifically pointed out that ICBC’s experts already opined on the issue of pre-existing fetal alcohol disorder without reservation and a further report would simply seek to bolster these opinions.
As of today’s date this judgement is not yet publicly available.  As always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.


Contributory Negligence Finding Does Not Reduce Deductions in ICBC UMP Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC UMP Cases, Uncategorized. 70 Comments on Contributory Negligence Finding Does Not Reduce Deductions in ICBC UMP Claim


In my ongoing efforts to summarize historic UMP Arbitration decisions, I have recently been provided a 2005 arbitration award dealing with several issues including the deduction of CPP benefits in circumstances where a Plaintiff was found contributorily negligent.
In the 2005 case (H v. ICBC) the Claimant was injured in a 1996 collision.  His claim proceeded to trial and his damages were assessed at just over $316,000 by the Jury.  The Plaintiff was also found 10% contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seat belt.
The Defendant was underinsured and the Plaintiff applied under his own UMP Coverage for payment of damages.  The Plaintiff had received CPP disability benefits of just over $65,000.  ICBC sought to deduct the whole of this amount from the Plaintiff’s UMP claim.  The Plaintiff opposed arguing that only 90% of the past payments should be deductible in keeping with the Jury’s finding.
Arbitrator Yule disagreed with the Plaintiff finding CPP benefit deduction can’t be reduced due to a contributory negligence finding.  In coming to this conclusion Arbitrator Yule provided the following reasons:
8…Section 148.1(5) provides that an award of UMP compensation shall not exceed the amount of damages awarded, “minus the sum of the applicable deductible amounts”.  As noted previously, one of the deductible amounts is an amount to which the insured is entitled under the Canada Pension Plan.  On its plain wording, the full amount of the disability benefits to which the Claimant is entitled under the Canada Pension Plan are to be deducted from his UMP Claim.  There is nothing in the wording of the UMP Regulations to suggest that deductible amounts are to be reduced in accordance with the percentage recovery of the Claimant.  As the Respondent correctly argues, Part 7 payments, which a re also a deductible amount, are deducted in full regardless of the percentage recovery of a Claimant.
Like many UMP Cases, This decision is not publicly available but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.

Discovery Evidence and the Principled Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


As previously discussed, one of the limits of examination for discovery evidence at trial is that it is generally only admissible against the person being examined.   Rule 12-5(46) permits the Court to make exceptions to this restriction in appropriate circumstances.  Reasons for judgement were released earlier this year by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing one such exception.
In the recent case (Yamakami v. Whittey) the Plaintiff was injured in an intersection crash.  Fault was contested.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant was examined for discovery.  Prior to trial the Defendant died.
The Defendant’s lawyer wished to rely on his examination transcript at trial in support of the Defence case.  Mr. Justice Fitch allowed this finding it was necessary to do so.  Interestingly, although the Court admitted the evidence finding that an examination for discovery created the necessary safeguards to meet the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the Court ultimately placed little weight on the Defendant’s version of events.  In allowing the evidence to be introduced Mr. Justice Fitch provide the following reasons:
[3] Mr. Whittey, who was 81 years of age when the accident occurred, died before trial but after his examination for discovery was completed on May 11, 2010. Counsel for the defendants applied at the outset of the trial to have his examination for discovery admitted in evidence for the truth of its contents under the principled approach to the hearsay rule. The application was opposed. As Mr. Whittey was deceased at the time of trial, the necessity criterion was met. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that despite the existence of process-based substitutes compensating for the loss of an ability to engage in contemporaneous cross-examination of the defendant (the oath, cross-examination and the existence of a verbatim record of the examination for discovery) the evidence Mr. Whittey gave on the examination for discovery was so inherently unreliable that the test of threshold reliability at the admission stage was not met. In oral reasons for judgment delivered November 4, 2011, I concluded that the process-based compensators present in this case provided a satisfactory basis for evaluating the reliability of the evidence in issue. Accordingly, I exercised my discretion to admit the evidence but made clear that it was for me, at the end of the day, to determine the ultimate or actual reliability of the evidence and the weight it should be accorded.

$30,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering Back Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, Uncategorized. 43 Comments on $30,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering Back Injury

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a lingering back injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Sidhu v. Johal) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 collision.  Fault was admitted by the offending motorist.  Although the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s evidence as to the severity and frequency of his complaints Madam Justice Fitzpatrick accepted the Plaintiff suffered from lingering back pain which flared with heavier activity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $30,000 the Court provided the following reasons:

[142] After having considered the evidence from Mr. Sidhu, the evidence of his independent witnesses and the medical evidence referred to above, I also find as a fact that Mr. Sidhu suffered the following injuries as a result of the accident and that those injuries were and are as follows:

a)       he suffered driving anxiety for a few days;

b)       he suffered headaches for approximately three weeks;

c)       he suffered pain to his ribcage or chest which was severe in the first three weeks but decreased from that time and was resolved within six months;

d)       he suffered shoulder pain which was resolved within a few weeks and neck pain which was resolved within two months;

e)       he suffered constant and severe pain in his back or lower back immediately following the accident which gradually became intermittent in the two months following the accident;

f)        since August 2007, Mr. Sidhu’s back problems have continued to improve; and

g)       following December 2007, Mr. Sidhu’s back pain was resolved for the most part, however, Mr. Sidhu continues to experience discomfort and mild pain in his back or lower back from time to time on a fairly infrequent basis, which increases to the point of severity depending on his physical fitness (based on his exercise regimen) and depending on the amount of exertion of heavy physical labour.

[143] I specifically reject Mr. Sidhu’s contention that he experienced constant and severe back pain for one and a half years after the accident and that he continues at this time to suffer sharp or severe back pain three to four times per week…

[157] I find that Mr. Sidhu is entitled to non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $30,000.

Hiring Multiple Lawyers Means Paying Multiple Lawyers

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


As previously discussed, if you are unhappy with your representation in an ICBC claim and are considering changing lawyers a key consideration to take into account is the amount of legal fees you will need to pay.  Hiring multiple lawyers typically means paying multiple lawyers.  This was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In today’s case (Herman v. Ian Sisett Law Corporation) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 motor vehicle collision.  She hired the Defendant law firm to represent her.  She did so on a contingency basis and the contract contained some of the typical provisions dealing with fees in the event the relationship terminated prior to settlement.
In the course of representation a conflict of interest became apparent and the lawyer could no longer represent the Plaintiff.  She hired a second lawfirm who gave an undertaking to protect the fee of the first firm.  The Plaintiff then changed lawyers again hiring a third firm.   The third firm gave no undertaking to protect the account of the first firm.
Ultimately the claim settled while the third firm represented the plaintiff and she paid their account.  The first firm then sent the client a final account of $62,500 for services rendered.   The parties could not agree on payment and the first lawyer brought an application for the third lawyer to produce their full file.  Mr. Justice Burnyeat found that this was an appropriate order to make to help determine a fair amount to be paid to the first lawyer.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[18] Here, there was no undertaking provided by Mr. Gordon that the fees of Sisett would be protected.  In that regard, the only undertaking to Sisett came from Becker Mathers.  Even though there was no such undertaking available to Sisett, I am satisfied that it would only be possible for Sisett to set a statement of account which was reasonable if the total amount of the settlement, any contingency fee arrangement in effect, and an outline of what work had been undertaken by Mr. Gordon was available.

[19] I am satisfied that this approach is in accordance with the decision in McQuarrie, Hunter v. Lord Estate (1983) 41 B.C.L.R. 123 (C.A.) where the trial judge ordered the Defendants to pay to the original firm the sum calculated on a quantum meruit basis immediately after taxation and where the Defendants appealed the ruling of the trial judge.  The question which was before the Court was described as follows:

The essential point at issue before us, therefore, is whether a solicitor who has been discharged without cause from a contingency fee contract is entitled to recover his fees on a quantum meruit basis prior to the conclusion of the action in which he was originally retained (at para. 6).

The question then arises: What compensation, if any, is the discharged solicitor entitled to, and at what time? (at para. 13).

[20] The Court concluded that the first firm would have to wait until after the disposition of the action.  On behalf of the Court, Nemetz C.J.B.C. stated in this regard:

While an obligation to pay arises on discharge, the client and solicitor await the completion of the lawsuit, and the result obtained becomes a factor in determining the value of the services of the original solicitor.  On this approach, no money is due until the value of the services has been determined.

I prefer this approach because of the historic recognition of the solicitor-client relationship as a very special one.  It is a relationship based on confidence and trust.  The dignity and integrity of the legal profession demand that the interests of the client be fully protected.  The relationship is such that the client is justified in seeking to dissolve it whenever he ceases to have absolute confidence in his solicitor.  The fact that the solicitor has rendered valuable services under his employment, or that the client is indebted to him for these services does not deprive the client of this right.  If, however, the client were to become liable to pay the reasonable fees of the solicitor at the time of discharging him, the client would be forced to choose between continuing the employment of a solicitor in whom he has lost faith or, in some cases, discontinuing his action.  This would defeat the underlying rationale of contingency fees.  In addition, if responsibility to pay reasonable fees were to accrue immediately upon discharge and the subsequent damage award to the client were substantially less than that anticipated, a financial disaster for the client may occur.  The risk of success or failure would have been shifted entirely to the shoulders of the client.  It is more consistent with the special relation between solicitor and client and the underlying rationale of a contingency fee agreement to have both parties await the happening of the contingency.  The interests of both parties can then be balanced in light of the outcome of the litigation.

Another reason for preferring this approach is that it does not require the taxing officer either, on the one hand, to tax the solicitor’s account as if the contingency was irrelevant, or, on the other hand, to hear the evidence that would be led in the principal action so that he can anticipate the contingency and assess the fee that the solicitor would have received if he had not been discharged.

Knowing the amount of the award, determined either by the Court or by settlement, the Registrar will be able to settle the amount of the bill of the contracting solicitor in the light of the recovery obtained by the client.  If nothing is recovered or the amount recovered is a modest one, the Registrar may nevertheless award the contracting solicitor some amount for his work.  If, on the other hand, a client, who sees success coming up, discharges his solicitor on the eve of the trial, the lack of any risk remaining in the contingency will be of very great significance.

(at paras. 13-16)

[21] In order to prepare a fair and reasonable bill on a quantum meruit basis, Sisett was entitled to have the information that it had requested:  the details of the settlement; the details of the contingency arrangement that was in effect between Ms. Herman and Slater Vecchio; the time records maintained by Slater Vecchio; any detailed account provided by Slater Vecchio; the fees and disbursements charged by Slater Vecchio; and any fees and disbursements paid to Becker Mathers for the work that they had undertaken.

$35,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For 3 Year Whiplash Injury

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


Keeping this site’s whiplash database current, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a soft tissue injury claim as a result of a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Carter v. Zhan) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision.  Fault was admitted.  The Plaintiff was injured in the crash and alleged the consequences were permanent.  She sought damages between $149,000-$206,000 at trial.  Despite rejecting the severity of the Plaintiff’s claims, Mr. Justice Verhoeven accepted the Plaintiff did suffer a whiplash injury of 36 months duration.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $35,000 the Court provided the following reasons:
[99] On the evidence, I accept that the plaintiff has established to the requisite standard of proof in a civil case that the accident resulted in soft tissue injuries which persisted for approximately 36 months after the accident, gradually lessening over that recovery period.  Thereafter, I conclude that she suffered from only minor lingering effects.  It follows that I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has established that her injuries are essentially permanent as she claims…

[122] In determining an appropriate non-pecuniary award to compensate the plaintiff for her losses, I set out my findings in relation to the relevant Stapley factors:

1. the plaintiff was 32 years old at the time of the accident(she is now 37);

2. she suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, jaw, shoulders, back, and pelvic girdle;

3. these injuries caused her mild to moderate pain and discomfort in her neck, jaw, shoulders, back, and pelvic girdle, primarily on the left side of her body, for approximately three years and minor lingering effects thereafter, with the pain lessening gradually over those three years.  She also occasionally suffered minor chest stiffness and soreness and headaches;

4. the plaintiff’s injuries are not permanent and she is not disabled as a result of the accident;

5. the injuries caused the plaintiff some emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life over the three-year recovery period;

6. the plaintiff was also somewhat restricted in her physical activities over that time; and

7. the plaintiff did not suffer a loss of lifestyle as a result of her injuries.

[123] Bearing in mind these factors, I find the following cases provide some assistance in determining the appropriate range for non-pecuniary damages: Cameron v. Savory, 2008 BCSC 1708, [2008] B.C.J. No. 2429 [Cameron]; Dhanoa (Litigation guardian of) v. Hui, 2008 BCSC 907, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1307 [Dhanoa]; Mullican v. Steuart, 2003 BCSC 289, [2003] B.C.J. No. 416 [Mullican]; Lane v. Ford Credit Canada Leasing Limited et al., 2003 BCSC 701, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1042 [Lane]; Gray v. Balsdon, [1996] B.C.J. No. 667 (S.C.) [Gray]; and Johnston v. Day, 2002 BCSC 480, [2002] B.C.J. No. 920 [Johnston].

[124] Considering all the circumstances, and the principles enunciated in Stapley, I assess Ms. Carter’s non-pecuniary loss at $35,000.

$10,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for 4 Month Soft Tissue Injury; Costs Denied Under Rule 14-1(10)

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 14, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for soft tissue injuries sustained in consecutive motor vehicle collisions.
In last week’s case (Liu v. Thaker) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions, the first in October of 2007 and the second a month later.  Both collisions caused relatively minor soft tissue injuries which largely recovered in 4 months.  In assessing Non-Pecuniary Damages at $10,000 Mr. Justice Schultes made the following findings:

[58] On the whole I would say that the plaintiff’s case offered persuasive evidence of relatively minor soft-tissue injuries, rather than the unpersuasive evidence of more serious injuries that is sometimes seen in motor vehicle injury cases.

[59] I find that Mr. Liu did suffer the injuries that he described and that they were caused by the two accidents for which the defendants have admitted responsibility. These were soft-tissue injuries to the neck and shoulder which had largely resolved by the end of February 2009, about four months after the first accident…

[65] In all the circumstances, balancing the various factors, and having due regard to the range, but not being straight jacketed by it, I consider an award of $10,000 for non-pecuniary damages to be appropriate in this case.

Paragraphs 75-82 of the reasons for judgment are also worth reviewing for the Court’s reasoning in denying the Plaintiff costs findng there was no ‘sufficient reason’ to sue in Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 14-1(10).
Lastly, paragraph 56 is worth reviewing for the Court’s comments addressing the Defendant’s ‘low velocity impact’ testimony.  Mr. Justice Schultes provided the following criticism:
[56] Except as to the bare contours of his involvement in the first accident, I did not find Mr. Thaker’s evidence credible. He sought to portray the impact as so slight as to be virtually negligible — a mere touching of the vehicles, in his view. But he also sought to absolve himself of the responsibility of having caused the accident, even though liability has been admitted on his behalf. This suggested somewhat of a self-serving perspective on his part, which is at odds with the reality of the situation. It also made no sense to me, if the impact had been as trivial as Mr. Thaker claimed, that he would have asked Mr. Liu if he was okay afterwards, as he described. On his version of a mere touching between the vehicles, such an inquiry would have been completely unnecessary.