Skip to main content
Search Results for “disbursements

Defendant Awarded Trial Costs for Beating Formal Settlement Offer in ICBC Claim

While Rule 37B is still being shaped in its application one pattern that is relatively well established is that if a Plaintiff is awarded less at trial than ICBC’s formal settlement offer the Plaintiff will likely be deprived of their trial costs and be ordered to pay a portion of the Defendant’s costs.  Reasons for judgement […]

More on Court Costs and "Sufficient Reason" For Suing in the BC Supreme Court

Further to my previous posts on this topic, if a Plaintiff successfully sues in the BC Supreme Court but receives damages below $25,000 they may be deprived of their court ‘costs’ unless they had ‘sufficient reason’ for choosing the Supreme Court over small claims court. Two judgements were released this week by the BC Supreme […]

More on Formal Settlement Offers – Relevance of Insurance and a Novel Use of Rule 37B

In my continued efforts to write about the development of Rule 37B (the rule that deals with costs consequences after a party beats a formal settlement offer at trial) two cases were released this week further interpreting this rule. The first case (Ostiguy v. Hui) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 BC car crash.  She ultimately […]

Cost of MRI and Medical Report Ordered By Lawyer Disallowed

The winning side to a lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court is allowed to recover reasonable disbursements.  Some of the greatest costs of advancing injury lawsuits are those associated with expert medical evidence.  Today, reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering two common disbursements of Plaintiff lawyers in ICBC […]

More on Rule 37B; Settlement Offers, Acceptance and the Discretion of the Court

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing whether the BC Supreme Court has discretion to make costs awards after a formal settlement offer is accepted that specifically addresses costs consequences. In today’s case (Hambrook v. Sandhu) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 BC collision.  He sued […]

The Debate Goes On – Rule 37B and the Relevance of Insurance

Further to my numerous posts discussing the development of Rule 37B, reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating that this Rule’s application is still being shaped by the BC Supreme Court. The one factor that has yet to receive judicial agreement is whether the defendant being insured is a factor the Court can consider when […]