Skip to main content

Woodlands Survivor Class Action Application Deadline Extended to September 2012

Written by admin on . Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized.

Earlier this year the BC Supreme Court refused to approve a class action settlement involving historic sexual abuse claims where the proposed settlement would impose a limitation period for class members where one would not otherwise exist.  Further reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with the balancing act of sexual abuse class action settlements and imposed limitation periods.
This week’s case (Richard v. British Columbia) involved the Woodlands school class action settlement which was initially approved on July 7, 2010.  One of the terms of the settlement required class members to advance their claims by September 19, 2011.  The deadline came and went and due to the complexity of the claims only a handful met the filing deadline.  An application was brought to extend this deadline.  Such applications were contemplated in the original settlement agreement.
Mr. Justice Bauman agreed that an extension was appropriate although declined the Plaintiff’s request for an indefinite extension.  Instead the Court moved the claims deadline to September 19, 2012 “without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to apply for further extensions“.  In striking this balance the Court provided the following comments seeking to reconcile the need for certainty in resolution against the need to protect BC sex abuse victims who generally aren’t faced with a limitation period in advancing their civil claims for damages:
[17]         I agree with the defendant that the application requires the Court to strike a balance between the parties which recognizes that in the give and take of the settlement negotiation process, each side made compromises to achieve their respective goals. It would be unfair, after the fact, to effectively take from one party a critical part of what it gained in the process through negotiation and compromise.
[18]         But in all the circumstances of this settlement, I do not believe that a substantial extension of the claims deadline can be so construed (especially in light of the fact that no limitation period attaches to these claims or at least a very substantial number of them). Still, an indefinite extension is not appropriate. I would, at this time, extend the claims deadline by one year to 19 September 2012, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to apply for further extensions. It is not appropriate to condition this extension, as the defendant proposes, by requiring the Class Members to file a so-called “without prejudice interim claim” within three months. In my view, such a condition would effectively make the claims deadline extension illusory in the circumstances of the difficulties facing the plaintiffs and their counsel in advancing the claims process.

Pre-Trial "Borrowing" Not Relevant in Costs Assessment

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Uncategorized. 55 Comments on Pre-Trial "Borrowing" Not Relevant in Costs Assessment

Section 3 of BC’s Negligence Act reduces a Plaintiff’s entitlement to costs recovery to the same proportion as a Plaintiff’s degree of fault following a collision.   Reasons for judgement were released last month by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the factors a Court can consider in deviating from this typical result and further finding that pre-trial borrowing is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis.
In last month’s case (Gowler v. Ngo) the Plaintiff was injured in two motor vehicle collisions.  Following a 13 day trial a Jury found the Plaintiff 50% at fault for the first of the collisions.  Damages of $250,000 were assessed and these were cut in half to take the Plaintiff’s degree of fault into consideration.  The Plaintiff’s costs for proceeding to trial were over $100,000.   Neither party beat their pre-trial settlement offer leaving the Court to apply section 3 of the Negligence Act.
Madam Justice Gray found it would be unfair to strip the Plaintiff of 50% of his costs given their magnitude and instead reduced the Plaintiff’s entitlement by 35%.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[14] The factors to take into account in considering the court’s discretion are discussed in my decision in Moses v. Kim, 2007 BCSC 1820. I will talk about the Court of Appeal decision in a moment, but I will ask that the reasons for judgment, if they are reproduced, will now include paragraph 13 of the Moses v. Kim decision.

[13]   The authorities demonstrate many factors the court has considered in exercising this discretion. Among them are the following:

(a)  the seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries;

(b)  the difficulties facing the plaintiff in establishing liability;

(c)  the fact that in settlement negotiations the amount offered was substantially below the ultimate amount;

(d)  whether the plaintiff was forced to go to trial to obtain recovery;

(e)  the costs of getting to trial;

(f)  the difficulty and length of the trial;

(g)  whether the costs recovery available to the plaintiff, if costs are apportioned according to liability, will bear any reasonable relationship to the party’s costs in obtaining the results achieved;

(h)  the positions taken by the parties at trial, in particular whether the positions taken were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances;

(i)  whether the defendants made any settlement offers;

(j)  the ultimate result of the trial; and

(k)  whether the plaintiff achieved substantial success that would be effectively defeated if costs were awarded pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Negligence Act…

[35] In my view, in this case the most important factors are the costs of proving damages for an injury of this type, the fact that there is a very significant claim for disbursements, and the fact that the amount of the award is $125,000 and the costs claimed are about $104,000.

[36] Mr. Mussio asked me to take into account some borrowing that Mr. Gowler did prior to the trial. In my view, that is not a factor I can take into account, nor can I take into account the legal fees, based on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Moses v. Kim case.

[37] Looking at all the applicable factors, in my view it would be unjust to award the plaintiff only 50 percent of his costs. That is because his award would be so diluted by the need to pay his disbursements that he would not have a sufficient recovery. However, it is not a case where Mr. Gowler’s damages were so significant as in the Moses case.

[38] Looking at the cases and all the applicable factors, in my view, the appropriate award is that the plaintiff should recover 65 percent of his costs.

Documented "Prior Inconsistent Statements" Need To Be Listed Under the New Rules of Court

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

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with document listing obligations under the new Rules of Court.
In last week’s case (Tran v. Kim Le Holdings Ltd.) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of personal injuries.  In the course of trial the Defendant called a witness who gave evidence as to the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s injury which were not favourable to the Plaintiff’s case.  The same witness had provided the Plaintiff’s lawyer a statement years before the trial with a different version of events.  The Plaintiff failed to disclose the existence of this document in her list of documents.  The Plaintiff argued that the new Rules of Court don’t require such statements to be listed as they only go to credibility which is a collateral matter.
Mr. Justice Harris disagreed finding that statements containing prior witness inconsistencies can go beyond the issue of credibility and therefore need to be listed.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[13] Counsel submits, first, that a prior inconsistent statement is not a document that could be used to prove or disprove a material fact. It is a document relevant only to credibility. Therefore, it is not required to be listed. Secondly, counsel submits that until the contradictory evidence was given by the witness, counsel had no intention of using the document at trial. The use of the document has only become necessary because of the surprise in the evidence that was given.

[14] I turn to deal with this point. I must say that I am sceptical that the plaintiff’s argument is correct. It is common ground that the document here is covered by litigation privilege, which necessarily ties it into relevant issues in the litigation. Rule 7?1(6) governs the listing of privileged documents. It is not obvious to me from the wording of the rule that the scope of the obligation set out in Rule 7?1(6) is qualified or limited by Rule 7?1(1).

[15] More importantly, however, prior inconsistent statements can be used, in my view, to prove or disprove material facts. Depending on how a witness responds to the statement when put to the witness, the effect of the use of the statement may well go beyond merely affecting credibility. The witness may adopt the content of the statement insofar as it relates to material facts; in that sense, at least, statements can facilitate the proof of material facts. Statements can facilitate the proof of material facts even if the witness does not adopt them, because findings on material facts may be affected by findings on credibility. But if a witness does adopt a prior inconsistent statement and accept the truth of it, that statement may be used as proof of the truth of its contents, and thereby be used to prove or disprove material facts.

[16] A fine parsing of the obligation to list documents is, in my view, contrary to the policy of disclosure which is exemplified by the Stone decision in the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Justice Harris agreed that while the document should have been listed, it could be used in cross examination as the failure to list was done in good faith and further there was no real prejudice to the Defendant.  In doing so the  Court applied the following factors in exercising its discretion:

[19] … What is clear, however, from these cases is that my discretion has to be exercised on the basis of the following principles:

(a)      whether there is prejudice to the party being cross-examined ?? in this case, of course, it is a witness who is being cross-examined, but the relevant prejudice is to the defendants;

(b)      whether a reasonable explanation of the party’s failure to disclose has been provided;

(c)      whether excluding the document would prevent the determination of the issue on its merits; and

(d)      whether, in the circumstances of the case, the ends of justice require the documents to be admitted.

[24] It is evident that there is a policy against insulating a witness from cross-examination on prior inconsistent statements, because to do so would undermine the search for truth. It is also evident that requiring listing can be seen in some respects as being inconsistent with the purpose of litigation privilege. Both of these points were accepted in the Cahoon decision, in the context of a discussion of the limitation, or explanation, of the scope of the Stone decision…

[33] I observe further, with respect to prejudice, that the defendants could readily have determined whether or not the witness had given a statement. The fact of the existence of the statement was within the knowledge of the defendants. It is not a situation quite like Stone where there would simply be an assumption by counsel that a pain journal had likely been kept and that the fact of the existence of the document could not be verified without the document having been listed. In my view, this mitigates the prejudice, to some degree, that is associated with the use of the document.

[34] Weighing and balancing these conflicting principles, I have reached the conclusion that, in the interests of justice, counsel ought to be permitted to use the document for the purpose of cross-examination.

Interest on Disbursements Allowed in Significant Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Uncategorized.

Update – May 17, 2013 – the below decision was upheld on appeal this week. You can click here to read about this development
____________________________________________________________________
A developing area in BC relating to personal injury law is the ability of a Plaintiff to recover interest charged on disbursements.  Prosecuting personal injury claims, particularly claims with complex injuries, can be an expensive business.  Disbursements can quickly add up to tens of thousands of dollars.  These expenses are often financed through a line of credit which can accrue significant interest over time.
Although the BC Court of Appeal has yet to weigh in on this subject, it appears the law is shifting to allow interest on disbursements to be recovered in personal injury litigation in this Province.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, allowing such a result.
In today’s case (Chandi v. Atwell) the infant Plaintiff was severely injured in a 2004 collision.  The case settled for $900,000 plus costs and disbursements.  Following settlement ICBC took issue with many of the Plaintiff’s disbursements.  The parties had these assessed by the BC Supreme Court.  While some reductions were made the Court ultimately upheld many of the Plaintiff’s disbursements including a medico-legal assessment which alone cost almost $17,000.
The Plaintiff incurred over $25,000 in disbursement interest.  In allowing this expense the Court provided a useful summary of the law at paragraph 71 of the reasons for judgement with District Registrar Cameron coming to the following conclusion:
[73]         While the current state of the law mandates that I make some allowance for the interest expense in my view I am not bound to award full indemnity for the amount of interest charged to the Plaintiff. I am not bound by Basi v. Atwal and with the greatest of respect I decline to follow it.
[74]         In the law of costs it is still only in the relatively rare case that full indemnity is provided to the successful party. Only disbursements that are necessary and reasonable in amount are recoverable.
[75]         In my view the Registrar should endeavour, wherever possible, in assessing the amount to allow for a specific type of disbursement to strive for consistency unless the application of that principle would work a real hardship or unfairness in a particular case. To attain that consistency I will make an allowance for disbursement interest based upon Registrar’s rates with the calculation of the total amount to be akin to the calculation of interest payable on special damages pursuant to the relevant provisions of Court Order Interest Act.
For more on this topic you can click here to accessed my archived ‘interest on disbursement’ posts.  This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s comments at paragraphs 49-53 on ‘transcription fees‘ finding that this is a disbursement of convenience, not necessity, and therefore not allowable.

$200,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for "Complicated" Traumatic Brain Injury

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

Reasons for judgement were released last month by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing global damages at $836,000 for injuries and loss flowing from a motor vehicle collision.
In last month’s case (Gilbert v. Bottle) the Plaintiff was a passenger in the Defendant’s vehicle.  His careless driving caused the vehicle to lose control ejecting the Plaintiff from the vehicle.  She sustained numerous physical injuries the most significant of which was described as a ‘complicated‘ traumatic brain injury.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $200,000 Madam Justice Dickson made the following findings:
190] I conclude that Ms. Gilbert suffered a complicated mild traumatic brain injury with significant and permanent sequelae as a result of the accident…
[191] I also conclude that the change in Ms. Gilbert’s substance abuse pattern is substantially connected to her brain injury symptoms.  Dulling physical and emotional pain with crack cocaine shows markedly poor judgment and poor self-control.  Ms. Gilbert’s already inadequate functioning in these areas has been further compromised by her injuries.  In consequence, her substance abuse problem has altered in a significantly negative way…
[195] I further conclude that Ms. Gilbert suffers from chronic pain disorder as a result of the accident.  The pain includes frequent neck, shoulder and back pain, together with cervicogenic headaches which originate from soft tissue injuries to her neck.  I am satisfied that her pain is genuine in the sense that it is not feigned or goal-directed, although it has a significant psychological, as well as physical, component.  In particular, Ms. Gilbert’s pre-existing emotional vulnerability and increased emotional disturbance caused by her brain injury are both substantially connected to the severity and maintenance of her ongoing pain.  The onset of the pain is a result of the accident…

[198] The extent of Ms. Gilbert’s loss due to her accident-related injuries is substantial.  She is, in my view, a thin skull plaintiff.  Before the accident, she lived a borderline existence due to her harsh environment, disorganized lifestyle and poor general health and habits.  As Dr. Travalos points out, however, she was nonetheless able to work with New Directions.  She was also able to participate in and enjoy intimate personal connections.

[199] As a result of the accident, Ms. Gilbert can no longer do either.  In effect, she has lost the two major sources of pleasure, purpose and meaning in an already difficult life.

[200] Ms. Gilbert is and will probably remain competitively unemployable due to the effects of her traumatic brain injury.  Although her post-accident functional change is more substantial than Dr. Travalos assumed, I accept his view that her injuries tipped her over the edge in a vocational sense.  I also accept that Ms. Gilbert’s quality of life may improve with appropriate support and treatment.  I am satisfied, however, that, even with support, she will probably never work for pay again…

[220] I conclude that an award of $200,000 in non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in all of the circumstances.  Ms. Gilbert’s permanent loss of capacity to work and engage emotionally with others is a great loss given their central significance in her difficult life.  In my view, Ms. Gilbert’s consequent need for solace is also great.  Nevertheless, she is entitled to compensation for only the change to her original position.  The award should not extend to her pre-existing difficulties that would have persisted or deteriorated further regardless of her injuries.  In other words, the award must be fair and reasonable to both parties.

Treating Surgeon Allowed to Give Expert Evidence Despite Non-Compliance With Rules of Court

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.


Although the BC Supreme Court Rules have strict requirements with respect to the admission of expert opinion evidence Rule 11-7(6) gives the Court a wide discretion to dispense with these if “the interests of justice require it“.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this discretion.
In this week’s case (Milliken v. Rowe) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  At trial the Plaintiff presented expert opinion evidence from a privately retained physiatrist.  The Plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon was also called to the stand, however, he was not called as an expert witness but rather as a witness of fact.  Despite this limitation the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 11-7(6) and permitted the treating surgeon to give opinion evidence addressing diagnosis and prognosis.  In doing so Mr. Justice Davies provided the following reasons:

[55] Dr. Zarkadas was not called as an expert witness at trial but he is obviously a well-qualified orthopaedic surgeon. He is also Ms. Milliken’s treating physician concerning her right shoulder difficulties.

[56] As such he was able to assist me in assessing Ms. Milliken’s future prospects if the surgery is undertaken or if it is not. To that extent, his more immediate involvement with and treatment of Ms. Milliken allows insight that was not previously available to Dr. Andrew Travlos (adduced as opinion evidence by the plaintiff) arising from his examinations and enquiries six months earlier.

[57] In those circumstances, notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiff to seek to have Dr. Zarkadas qualified to provide opinion evidence, I determined to receive his evidence concerning his diagnosis and prognosis related to Ms. Milliken’s right shoulder injuries.

[58] I did so over the objection of the defendant because of my belief that the determination of damages in this case should be based upon the best evidence available.

[59] In my opinion, the ability to achieve a just result should be served, rather than thwarted, by the application of procedural rules.

[60] The Court’s power to exercise discretion to allow relief from the harsh consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules recognizes that principle.

[61] I also, however, recognized that the defendant could be prejudiced by the admission and consideration of Dr. Zarkadas’ prognostic evidence if not given an opportunity to answer it.

[62] I accordingly provided the defendant an opportunity to consider whether to call rebuttal evidence before rendering judgment.

[63] I was subsequently informed that the defendant did not intend to do so.

2012 Annotated Supreme Court Civil Rules Now Available

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 53 Comments on 2012 Annotated Supreme Court Civil Rules Now Available


The 2012 Edition of Dillon & Turriff’s “White Book” is now available.
I received my copy this week.  If you haven’t purchased an updated version of this text in a while now is a good time to do so.  Not only does this text have updated annotations on the new Supreme Court Civil Rules and a useful table cross-referencing the current rules to their previous counterparts, this year’s edition has removed the Supreme Court Forms and instead provides these in a supplemental book.  This resulted in a surprising reduction in size of the text compared to previous versions and makes for lighter packing for your next trip to Chambers or Trial.

Driver Fully Liable Following Passenger Ejection From Box of Pick Up Truck

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

The BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgement this week assessing a driver 100% at fault for serious injuries to a passenger who was ejected from the box of his pick-up truck.
In this week’s case (Vedan v. Stevens) the Defendant driver allowed 4 children sit in the box of his pick-up truck.  The 12 year old Plaintiff was one of these children.  In the course of the trip the defendant ”first became aware of a problem when he heard pounding on the cab of his truck…he stopped the truck and determined that one of the children, the plaintiff, was no longer in the truck box. He looked back and could see the plaintiff lying in the middle of the road“.
The Court heard no evidence as to how the Plaintiff came to fall out.   At trial the motorist was found at fault for negligently allowing the Plaintiff to ride in the box.  The Plaintiff was also found 25% at fault with the Court concluding that the Plaintiff “must have at least moved from a seated position” in being ejected.  The Plaintiff appealed this finding arguing there was no evidence to support this conclusion.  The BC Court of Appeal agreed and placed 100% of the blame on the motorist.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[14] A plaintiff must take reasonable care for his or her own safety. The question when considering reasonable conduct by children is whether the child exercised the care to be expected from a child of like age, intelligence and experience. (Ottosen v. Kasper (1986), 37 C.C.L.T. 270 at 275; McEllistrum v. Etches [1956] S.C.R. 787 at 793).

[15] In this case, we do not know why Inquala stood up or even if he stood up voluntarily. As already noted, no one gave evidence about how Inquala left the back of the truck – whether he got up himself and fell out, whether he was bounced out, whether he was pushed out, whether a wasp was buzzing around him, or whether the other children were harassing him and he had to move. There was no evidence of the circumstances that caused him to get up from his seated position and, therefore, there is no basis for a finding that Inquala did not take reasonable care for his safety. Such a finding is based on speculation.

[16] In my respectful view, there was no foundation in the evidence upon which the trial judge could reasonably infer that Inquala was contributorily negligent. This conclusion is a palpable and overriding error, with which we may interfere.

[17] I would allow the appeal, set aside the part of the order which found Inquala contributorily negligent, and assess liability to Mr. Stevens at 100%.

Lawsuit Against Delta Police Following Bar Fight Dismissed

Written by admin on . Posted in Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized.


Lengthy reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, disposing of a personal injury lawsuit launched by a former NHL enforcer against the Delta Police and others following a 2006 assault which occurred at the Cheers Pub in Delta, BC.
In this week’s case (Burnett v. Moir) the Plaintiff suffered a moderately severe traumatic brain injury after being struck on the head with a bar stool.  The injury ended the Plaintiff’s professional hockey career.
There was video surveillance which showed “an assailant striking the plaintiff on the head with a bar stool taken from the premises afer he apparently stumbled and fell to the ground as he and the others were being ejected“.  The assailant was never identified.
The Plaintiff sued the owners and managers of the Cheers Pub, the local police, and the local government for compensation for his personal injuries.  Prior to trial he settled his case with the Pub.  The Plaintiff alleged that the local police and the local government were liable because they “failed to properly identify Cheers as a nuisance to the public, a trap for the unwary, and to take pre-emptive steps to abate the danger it represented to potential patrons”.
The Plaintiff led evidence to support his allegations including evidence that from 1998-2007 “there were a total of 2,410 police service calls to Cheers during that period, 231 of which were for assaults, 9 of which were for uttering threats, 10 of which were obstructing a peace officer, 138 for suspicious person/vehicle occurrences, 200 of which were for creating a disturbance, 217 for “unspecified assistance” and 1,605 of which were for “other”“.
Despite this evidence the lawsuit was dismissed with the Court finding that the Police and Local Government did not owe the Plaintiff a duty of care in these circumstances. Mr. Justice Cullen summarized his analysis as follows :

[411] The presence or absence of a close causal connection between the negligence alleged and the harm caused is a factor in determining proximity.  In Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, supra,Iacobucci J. held as follows in the context of a proximity analysis at para. 57:

Although a close causal connection is not a condition precedent of liability, it strengthens the nexus between the parties.

[412] Where, as here, the causal connection, insofar as the failure to warn is concerned, is remote and speculative rather than close, it cannot be said that the nexus between the parties is strong or compelling.

[413] For those reasons, while finding some limited evidence of a connection between the Delta Defendants and prospective Cheers patrons arising from the police corporate knowledge that a person entering Cheers was likely to be exposed to an environment involving some violent or turbulent circumstances, I am not satisfied the evidence reaches the level of establishing a close and direct relationship featuring the indicia of proximity identified by Chief Justice McLachlin in Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth, supra, or manifested in other decisions such as Jane Doe, Mooney, orSchacht.

[414] I thus conclude the relationship at issue does not sustain sufficient proximity to found a duty of care.  The plaintiff was but one of a large indeterminate pool of potential patrons of Cheers, rather than an identifiable potential victim of a specific threat.

Talking BC Insurance Rates; Let's Be Intellectually Honest

Written by admin on . Posted in Tort Reform, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on Talking BC Insurance Rates; Let's Be Intellectually Honest


On October 28, 2011, Coquitlam Now published an article by Neil Mohinrda, the director of the Centre for Financial Policy Studies at the Fraser Institute.  The article was titled “Maintaining ICBC a disservice to BC drivers“.
In short Mr. Mohinrda discussed the perceived virtues of private insurance while criticizing the perceived short-comings of public insurance.  While I’m never opposed to a private/public auto insurance debate, or to scrutiny of auto insurance premiums, what the one-sided article is sorely missing is a discussion of what people get for their money in different Canadian Jurisdictions.
I’ve addressed this topic before.  A meaningful discussion of insurance rates simply can’t be had without looking at the product.  Furthermore the private insurance industry is quick to call for the stripping of victim rights in order to have a functioning system.  BC’s experience demonstrates this is far from necessary.
I was glad to see that Mr. Mohindra’s article was quickly called out for its short-comings.  You can click here to read the criticism raised by Kellee Irwin, ICBC’s Vice President of Personal Insurance who correctly points out that
Mr. Mohindra’s column mentions Alberta on a couple of occasions. While you may be able to get a cheaper insurance premium there, they fail to point out that our customers’ medical and rehab benefits are three times more than those offered in Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario. In comparison to our $150,000 in medical and rehab coverage in B.C., those three provinces offer $50,000 while Nova Scotia provides $25,000.
If we’re making comparisons between provinces, which we agree is difficult to do, it should also be noted that drivers in Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are limited in what payments they can receive. Those provinces have systems that are variously based on caps or deductibles on pain and suffering awards. This is not the case in B.C., where drivers are entitled to take the at-fault party to court for damages
For more analysis you can click here for a good overview from a BC lawyer who previously practiced in a private insurance jurisdiction and shares some observations of the private insurance industry.