Skip to main content

"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

$20,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Relatively Mild But Likely Permanent" Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 15, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases. 1 Comment on $20,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Relatively Mild But Likely Permanent" Soft Tissue Injuries

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with damages for minor soft tissue injuries following a so-called ‘low velocity impact‘ collision.
In the recent case (Wallner v. Uppal) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear-end collision. Fault was admitted.  The collision was relatively minor causing just under $450 worth of vehicle damage.  Despite this the Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and shoulder.  Her symptoms were “mild” but were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $20,000 Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein provided the following reasons:
[14]         The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for a permanent partial disability relating to her intermittent ongoing neck, upper back and shoulder pain and left arm pain, and numbness and tingling she says is caused by the accident.  The plaintiff acknowledges her condition is relatively mild but maintains it is persistent and likely permanent.  She claims she experiences pain and discomfort while commuting to work, at work, doing household work, and during recreational activity.  She complains of intermittent weakness and lack of sensitivity in her left hand.  She claims she is unable to predict when she will be symptomatic.
[15]         In this case, in addition to minimal cosmetic damage to the vehicles, the plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not objectively verifiable, and in any event her injuries were minor and of minimal impact on her life.  The plaintiff has not missed any work and has no claim for past wage loss or for loss of future earning capacity despite maintaining a permanent partial disability.  The evidence establishes the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries of a minor nature, with continued minor, intermittent numbness and tingling in her left arm and fingers, which injuries have had and will have minimal impact on her life.
[16]         In the result, based on an assessment of the evidence and considering the authorities relied on by counsel, the plaintiff is awarded general damages in the amount of $20,000.  In addition, she is awarded special damages in the amount of $283, with court order interest.  With the agreement of counsel, costs are set pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules, R.15-1(15)(c) at $11,000 and disbursements.

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.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Long Term Soft Tissue Injuries with Guarded Prognosis

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

An appeal of the below decision was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal in February 2014
______________________________________________
Adding to this sites database of ICBC soft tissue injury judgements, reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for soft tissue injuries with a guarded prognosis.
In the recent case (Clark v. Kouba) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted focussing the trial on assessing damages.  The Plaintiff brought a claim “well in excess of one million dollars” while the Defendant argued the losses were minimal and that the Plaintiff was “feigning her injuries for financial gain“.
Madam Justice Power disagreed with the Defendant’s credibility attack but did award “a much more modest sum” than the plaintiff ultimately sought.  The Court found that the crash caused soft tissue injuries that impacted “all aspects of the plaintiff’s life” and that the prognosis was guarded.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 the Court provided the following reasons:
[72]         In this case, it is clear that the soft tissue injuries the plaintiff suffered have impacted all aspects of the plaintiff’s life.  In addition to the physical symptoms I have detailed above, her injuries have impacted her personal relationships including her relationship with her husband and children.  She has difficulty in performing some household chores, including making the beds and laundry and she has to call upon her husband and children to perform those tasks.
[73]         The plaintiff has been dedicated to her own rehabilitation and such efforts in my view cannot be used to diminish the extent of her injury.  In that sense she can be considered a stoic individual.  Formerly she engaged in her recreational pursuits such as long distance running and yoga, for her own physical enjoyment.  Now when she engages in them it is for an additional purpose, in order to assist in managing her chronic pain.
[74]         I conclude that, as a result of the accident, Ms. Clark has suffered pain and loss of enjoyment of life, and her prognosis for the future is guarded.  All of the authorities cited by both plaintiff’s counsel and the defence make it clear that each case is unique and must be determined on its own facts.  This case is unusual, because the plaintiff is still able to participate in her recreational pursuits, including marathon running, and has completed a marathon in a second personal best time since the accident.
[75]         Having considered the authorities cited and all of the circumstances in this case, it is my view that $85,000.00 is a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary damages.

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.

Can I Get Fees With That? Law Firm Unsuccessfully Seeks Fees From Their Own Insurer's Negligence Payout

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 53 Comments on Can I Get Fees With That? Law Firm Unsuccessfully Seeks Fees From Their Own Insurer's Negligence Payout

Reasons for judgement were released  this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing whether a lawfirm that negligently failed to file a lawsuit before the expiry of a limitation period can then seek fees from their clients for the payout the client’s receive in successfully pursuing the lawfirm for damages stemming from their negligence.  Not surprisingly the answer was no.
In this week’s case (Taylor v. Brozer) the clients were injured in a 2006 Washington State collision.  The crash was caused by an underinsured motorist.  They had ICBC Underinsured Motorist Protection coverage and retained the lawfirm to represent them in their UMP Claim. They did so on a contingency basis.  The lawfirm “failed to file a writ in Washington State and missed the limitation period thus denying the clients their rights to seek UMP protection/damages from ICBC“.
The clients hired a new lawyer to sue the former firm.   Ultimately the former firms insurer paid out a $200,000 settlement “based on the clients’ expected recovery under UMP“.
The initial lawfirm then sought over $25,000 in fees from their former clients “in respect of the work it did for the clients” arguing that the work they did before missing the limitation period “was of value and the lawfirm ought to be compensated“.  Registrar Sainty dismissed the claimed fees finding they could not be recovered.  In reaching this decision the court provided the following reasons for judgement:
[49]         There is no dispute between the parties that these solicitors were retained by these clients for a single purpose: “to handle the client’s claim for damages arising from injury suffered in the [Accident]” (paragraph 1 of the retainer agreement). The retainer agreement between them is therefore an “entire contract” in accordance with the holdings in Ladner Downs v. Crowley (supra).
[50]         Since it is an “entire contract”, unless the solicitors had “good cause” to withdraw from acting for the clients, they are not entitled to any fees for the work done by them for the clients up to the time the retainer contract was terminated (Maillott and Morrison Voss v. Smith, 2007 BCCA 296).
[51]         Did they have “good cause” to withdraw? There is no doubt that it was their negligence (in missing the limitation period) that terminated the retainer. After realising their negligence, the solicitors were bound to withdraw and they could no longer act for the clients.
[52]         Can the solicitors own negligence constitute “good cause” as submitted by the law firm or must it be said that as the solicitors “caused” the termination (by their own negligence) therefore must be found not to have had good cause to withdraw (as submitted by the clients)?
[53]         In my view, the solicitors cannot be found to have “good cause” to withdraw. It is simply not proper to hold that a lawyer may find “good cause” for withdrawal in his own negligence and thus be entitled to claim a fee for work done for his clients before his negligence was discovered but may not find “good cause” for withdrawal in something completely beyond his control (e.g., an appointment to the bench, nonpayment of practice fees, death or the like) and lose his entitlement to claim a fee for work done up to the time of the involuntary act. My view is supported by the decision of District Registrar Blok (as he then was) in McVeigh v. Ewachniuk, 2003 BCSC 1328) wherein it was held that a solicitor’s disbarment was not “good cause” for terminating an entire contract retainer.
[54]         Even if I am wrong in this analysis, I find that the work performed by the law firm was of no value to the clients and therefore the clients should not be required to pay the law firm for any of that work. The failure of the law firm to file the action in Washington State defeated the whole purpose of the retainer. But for the assistance of New Counsel and the intervention of the law firms’ insurer, the clients were left with no remedy against the underinsured motorist and thus the work done by the solicitors must be said to have been of no value. Any value was lost once the limitation period was missed and the personal injury action became doomed to fail.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Wrist Injury Cases.


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing non-pecuniary damages for a host of injuries including a broken nose, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome requiring surgery and chronic soft tissue injuries.
In this week’s case (Mayervich v. Sadeghipour) the 72 year old Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 crash.  Liability was admitted by the Defendant.   The Plaintiff suffered chronic injuries in the crash with symptoms persisting to trial.  While there was some room for further improvement some symptoms were expected to last indefinitely   In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Mr. Justice Grauer provided the following reasons:
[57]         In my mind, the significant features of this case are these: 
·                 As a result of the accident, Mrs. Mayervich suffered a constellation of injuries, the most significant of which has been myofascial injury in the neck and back resulting in a chronic pain condition accompanied by a major depressive order and cognitive difficulties. 
·                 Included the constellation were a deviated septum (broken nose), and injuries to the arms and hands that culminated in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.  Both of these conditions required surgical intervention and both have resolved.  There was additional discomfort from injuries to the abdomen and chest. 
·                 These injuries have had a significant impact on Mrs. Mayervich’s quality of life.  The myofascial injuries in particular continue to interfere with her activities of daily living and recreation and have impaired her ability to interact with her husband, her daughters, and her grandchildren. 
·                 Mrs. Mayervich has already experienced nearly 5½ years of physical pain, depression, emotional upheaval and cognitive difficulty as a result of the accident. 
·                 It is likely Mrs. Mayervich will experience real improvement if she undertakes a program such as that recommended by Dr. Posthuma; full recovery however is unlikely, and a real possibility remains that she will experience no significant recovery. 
[58]         In my view, these features bring Mrs. Mayervich’s situation closer to the cases cited by counsel by the plaintiff than those cited by counsel for the defendants.  The award of $125,000 approved by the Court of Appeal in the Rizzolo case was to a considerably younger man who had suffered debilitating chronic pain affecting all aspects of his life but who had been able to return to his pre-accident employment.  In Hsu, on the other hand, the most recent of the three cases relied on by the defence where the award was $30,000, the plaintiff suffered from chronic neck and back myofascial disorder but this was an aggravation of pre-existing soft tissue conditions from a previous accident that had already given rise to chronic pain. 
[59]         Each case must of course be decided upon its own facts.  Considering all of the facts discussed above, I assess Mrs. Mayervich’s non-pecuniary damages at $85,000.

Rule 15 Costs Cap Applied to Settlement of a Non-Rule 15 Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 74 Comments on Rule 15 Costs Cap Applied to Settlement of a Non-Rule 15 Claim

Further to my previous posts on this topic (which can be found here and here), reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding that the Rule 15 costs cap can apply to a personal injury claim litigated outside of the fast track when a settlement below $100,000 is achieved.
In the recent case (Varga v. Shin) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  The plaintiff initially sought significant damages over $422,000 and the case was prosecuted in the usual course.  It was never put into the fast track rule.  Prior to trial the case settled for $65,000 plus costs “to be assessed or agreed“.  The parties could not agree on the costs consequences with the defendant arguing that the Rule 15 cap should apply.  Registrar Sainty agreed and in doing so provided the following reasons:
[27]         I prefer Ms Taylor’s submissions in relation to the application of the costs provisions of R. 15-1. In my view, this action, even though it was not declared to be a “fast track” action, is subject to the costs provisions of R. 15-1(15). I agree with Ms Taylor’s submissions that R. 15-1(1) is exclusive and not inclusive. In my opinion, if a matter settles for less than $100,000, R. 15-1(15) applies to the costs of the action. This is made clear, in my view, by the addition to the Rules of R. 14-1(1)(f). That subrule effectively fast tracks actions that were not fast tracked but should have been (see Axten, supra, and Affleck v. Palmer, 2011 BCSC 1366). The cases cited by Mr. Warnett (listed above) were all, in my view, decided per incuriam: without reference to either R. 15-1(1) or 14-1(1)(f) in relation to the issue of costs.
[28]         This interpretation is in keeping with the object of the Rules: “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits” 
(R. 1-3(1)) and the proportionality provisions set out in R. 1-3(2).
[29]         Finally, I note that Mr. Warnett also suggested that, if the defendants wished the provisions of R. 15-1(15) to apply to the action, they ought to have applied to place it into fast track and as they did not do so, they should not be allowed to limit the plaintiff’s costs to the costs allowed under R. 15-1(15). This suggestion cuts both ways however. Just as it was open to the defendants to seek an order bringing the matter into fast track, it was also open to Mr. Warnett to seek an order (even at the trial management conference) that R. 15-1 not apply to the action. He did not do so and as the action is by operation of the Rules a fast track action, it attracts costs per R. 15-1(15).
[30]         As I have found that the action falls within the provisions of R. 15-1(15), thus the plaintiff is entitled to some proportion of the $6,500 “cap” available (see Duong v. Howarth, 2005 BCSC 128; and Anderson v. Routbard, 2007 BCCA 193 [Anderson]). In order to avoid a re-attendance before me (or some other registrar) to determine how much of that cap the plaintiff may claim, I am going to employ some “rough and ready justice” (see Anderson, at paragraph 49 and Cathcart v. Olson, 2009 BCSC 618 at paragraph 19) to this matter. I will set the amount at the full $6,500, plus tax. This matter settled some 15 days before trial. Likely a good deal of the trial preparation had occurred up to the settlement. It is therefore appropriate that the plaintiff receive the full amount of the cap: see Gill v. Widjaja, 2011 BCSC 951 (Registrar), aff’d 2011 BCSC 1822.

Double Costs Awarded Following Liability Trial With Formal Settlement Offer In Place

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases.


One issue that was unclear under the new BC Supreme Court Rules was weather a formal settlement offer could trigger costs consequences following a liability only trial with quantum of damages still outstanding.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, answering in no uncertain terms that this was possible.
In this week’s case (Pike v. Dandiwal) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  Liability was disputed.  A liability only trial was heard and ultimately the Defendant was found wholly at fault for the crash.  Prior to trial the Plaintiff issued a formal settlement offer addressing the liability issue.  The Defendant provided a global settlement offer with a specific quantum.  Having succeeded on the issue of liability the Plaintiff sought double costs.
The Defendant argued that “costs should not be determined until after the assessment of damages because if Mr. Pike does not beat the dollar amount of the defendants’ offer, he should be denied his costs not only in respect of that (second) trial but this trial in which he was successful.“.  In rejecting this submission the Court noted that “no caselaw has been provided in support of this submission“.  In awarding double costs Mr. Justice Walker provided the following reasons:
[38]         In my view, double costs should be awarded to Mr. Pike. I find it most troubling that defence counsel has not brought me any case law to support his submissions. We are now at 5:05 p.m. I am going to impose a stay on the operation of my judgment for costs for 48 hours to allow the defendants the opportunity to find case law that supports their position, because the last thing I wish to do is commit an error in law.
[39]         If the defendants find that case law and wish to seek to have me reconsider my decision, I will hear it, so long as I receive advice of that by next Wednesday at noon through Trial Scheduling. Otherwise, the order will stand that the defendants pay double costs to Mr. Pike.
The Court then confirmed this result in supplementary reasons once no case-law was produced with the following reasons:
[1]             In my oral Reasons for Judgment dated October 5, 2012, I awarded double costs to the plaintiff.  I allowed counsel for the defendants 48 hours to provide me with case law supportive of their costs submissions.  On October 11, 2012 counsel for the defendants advised me through Trial Scheduling that no case law was located.  Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of double costs.