Skip to main content

Plaintiff Awarded $9,500 Costs Despite $4,000 Damage Assessement

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 14, BCSC Civil Rule 15.


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, with the “curious result” of costs recovery at over double the amount of assessed damages.
In last week’s case (Kargbo v. Chand) the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision.  ICBC disputed both fault and injury.  At trial the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted and modest damages of $4,000 were awarded.  The Plaintiff sought her costs.  ICBC opposed arguing the Plaintiff did not have sufficient reason to sue in Supreme Court.
Earlier this year the BC Court of Appeal made it clear that more than the value of an ICBC Claim can be considered in deciding whether there is sufficient reason to sue in the Supreme Court.  Mr. Justice Williams went on to canvass factors other than value and concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to $9,500 in costs under Rule 15-1(15).  The Court provided the following reasons:

[9] The problem ultimately reduces to this: If the Court determines that the plaintiff had sufficient reason for commencing or proceeding in the Supreme Court, she should be entitled to recover costs in accordance with Rule 15-1(15). If the Court finds that there was not sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in this Court, then she is not entitled to recover her costs.

[10] In Reimann v. Aziz, 2007 BCCA 448, the Court of Appeal clarified that the issue has to be analyzed as at the point in time that the plaintiff initiated the action; there is no ongoing obligation to assess the quantum of claim.

[11] I have been provided with a number of decisions where judges of this Court have assessed the circumstances of cases to decide whether or not an order for costs is warranted. Obviously, the plaintiff bears the onus of establishing that there was sufficient reason for filing in the Supreme Court. It is not simply a matter of assessing the anticipated value of the claim. A number of factors have been identified in the cases as being relevant to the issue. These include the following (the list is not intended to be exhaustive):

1.         the legal or factual complexity of the case;

2.         the need for discovery of documents and examinations for discovery;

3.         the need for a judgment enforceable outside of British Columbia;

4.         a bona fide preference for a jury trial;

5.         access to the summary trial procedure available in Supreme Court; and

6.         the need for the plaintiff to have legal counsel, in light of the defendant’s denial of liability, dispute as to causation, injury or loss and allegations of contributory negligence, pre-existing conditions, previous causes and a failure to mitigate.

[12] In the present case, liability was denied and in the circumstances could reasonably have been expected to represent a challenge to prove. As well, the issue of damages had the real potential of being a problem. The plaintiff had a history of prior accidents and had been hospitalized shortly after the accident in question for matters not related to the accident. She was also injured in another more serious accident some several months after the accident at bar. It was the sort of case that a self-represented plaintiff would find daunting no doubt.

[13] Taking those considerations into account, it is my view that this plaintiff had sufficient reason for bringing her proceeding in the Supreme Court.

[14] As a parenthetical observation, it is true that a party such as this plaintiff could elect to pursue the claim in the Provincial Court with legal counsel, although the prospect of incurring the expense to do so without any right to recover court costs is a legitimate factor to consider. As well, where the plaintiff elects to bring suit in the Supreme Court, she runs the real risk of an adverse costs outcome if the action is unsuccessful.

[15] In the circumstances, it is my view that the plaintiff should be entitled to costs in accordance with the Rules of Court. I recognize that might appear to produce a curious result in that the award of costs is substantially greater than the damages that she recovered. However, if the matter is considered fairly and objectively and the relevant rule applied, that result follows.

[16] There is no question that the policy which underpins Rule 14-1(1) is to encourage parties with claims of modest value to bring their action in the Provincial Court, and to provide for a penalty against one who does not. That is consistent with the concept of proportionality which is a foundational consideration of the Court’s Rules.

[17] The clear default position will be that, with respect to claims where the award is less than $25,000, the plaintiff will not be entitled to an award of costs. Nevertheless, there will be situations where there is sufficient reason to bring the action in the Supreme Court. It will be for the Court to examine the circumstances of each particular case to determine whether or not there is sufficient reason.

For more cases addressing sufficient reasons to sue in Supreme Court you can click here to access my archived posts on this topic.

$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.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Shoulder Injury

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

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder injury.
In this week’s case (Milliken v. Rowe) the 37 year old plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries in a 2007 collision.  The Defendant motorist admitted fault.  The Plaintiff’s most serious injury resulted in chronic shoulder pain the cause of which was described as “one of two things or both in combination which include biceps tendonitis and AC joint antropathy“.
The Plaintiff endured a variety of medical interventions none of which meaningfully resolved her injury.  Surgery was expected to have no better than a 50/50 chance of improving her injury.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $85,000 Mr. Justice Davies made the following findings:
[65] I find that the totality of the evidence establishes that the neck and shoulder pain as well as the headaches, back pain and right leg pain which Ms. Milliken has suffered since August 2007 were caused by the defendant’s negligence…

[83] Ms. Milliken was 37 when she was injured. She suffered from injuries to her right hip and back that caused significant discomfort (primarily at work). The effects of those injuries were largely resolved within about two years.

[84] Ms. Milliken also, however, suffered from right shoulder pain that did not resolve and has now been ongoing for four years. The only potential end in sight for the amelioration of the pain and suffering concerning her right shoulder is invasive surgery with about an even chance of success. Whether successful or not, the proposed complex surgery will require an extensive period of recuperation of from 3 to 6 months.

[85] I find that the pain Ms. Milliken has endured has been debilitating.

[86] While she has worked through much of it of necessity, the cost to her of doing so has been great.

[87] Her life has become a one-dimensional one in which activities unrelated to work have largely had to be put aside. She no longer has the stamina or physical ability to care for her home as she previously did and has become socially reclusive because of that and her constant tiredness.

[88] Ms. Milliken is no longer able to play with her grandchildren as she once did due to pain and discomfort in her shoulder. She no longer participates in making crafts or enjoying recreational pursuits with her family.

[89] Her injuries have also exacerbated the physical challenges which she now faces in caring for her husband and that prevented her from taking on some of the work around the home and yard for which he was previously responsible…

[91] Ms. Milliken’s suffering will also not end with this litigation.

[92] At minimum she must endure complex shoulder surgery and a lengthy period of rehabilitation in which she will continue to be unable to enjoy life as she once did. Her likely future enjoyment of life is also compromised by the prospect that the surgery may be wholly or partially unsuccessful.

[93] The totality of the evidence satisfies me that there is no question that Ms. Milliken will continue to suffer pain and suffering as well as loss of her enjoyment of life at least until after rehabilitation from surgery to her shoulder.

[94] There is also a substantial likelihood that she will suffer ongoing pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment into the future after the shoulder surgery…

[105] I award Ms. Milliken non-pecuniary damages of $85,000.

Personal Injury Claims Are Not "Measured by the Number of Doctors Seen"

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Shoulder Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.


The value of a personal injury case has little to do with the number of doctor visits a Plaintiff has.  I’ve discussed this topic previously.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, further addressing this matter.
In today’s case, (Tarzwell v. Ewashina) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle collision.  She suffered from chronic soft tissue injuries affecting her trapezius muscles and low back.   The injuries were on-going at the time of trial and the Court accepted that the symptoms would linger into the future.  Non-Pecuniary damages of $60,000 were awarded.  Prior to arriving at this assessment Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments making it clear that the number of doctor visits does not measure the quantum of a personal injury claim:
[67] If a plaintiff’s claim was to be measured by the number of doctors seen or by the number of medical consultations attended, then that would unjustly marginalize victims such as Ms. Tarzwell. She has chosen not to burden the medical system with unnecessary visits to physicians who would give her no further advice than what she had already been provided and followed. She should not be penalized for that.
This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s comments to the lawyers involved in the litigation for their efficient use of Court time.  Illustrating that meaningful claims can be litigated with little Court time Mr. Justice Dley provided the following compliments:

[5] This case was presented with uncompromising efficiency. Counsel were meticulous in focusing on those matters that were actually in dispute.

[6] The evidence was concluded in a day along with an additional half day for argument.

[7] The medical evidence consisted of two reports. There was no wasted expense by tendering marginal evidence that would have done little to assist the Court.

[8] A case that takes little time to present does not mean that damages are nominal. It is the quality and substance of the evidence that matters. Style should never trump substance.

[9] If an example of proportionality needed a model case, counsel have succeeded here in illustrating how litigation can be conducted.

More on the DME Prohibition of Bolstering Previous Opinions

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

While Plaintiff’s in personal injury lawsuits sometimes have to be subjected to multiple defence medical exams (DME) one well-settled principle is that subsequent exams to bolster a previous defence opinion are not permitted.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, demonstrating this principle in action.
In last week’s case (Dillon v. Montgomery) the Plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle collisions.  He sued for damages with both claims set for trial at the same time.   In the course of the lawsuit he agreed to attend a defence medical exam with an orthopaedic surgeon.  The examination included a neurological assessment.
The Defendant then applied for a second exam, this time with a neurologist, arguing this was necessary “to ensure reasonable equality between the parties in the preparation of a case for trial“.  Master Bouck disagreed finding a further exam was not necessary in the circumstances and amounted to an effort to “bolster” the previous opinion.  In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:

[17] Dr. McGraw reviews the findings contained in the neurological consult report in his own report. In additon, Dr. McGraw conducted a neurological examination.

[18] This expert’s opinion is that the plaintiff’s “back pain is of muscular origin and not related to intervertebral disc disease, arthritis of the apophyseal joints, or nerve root irritation”…

[28] In the case at bar, I determined that an examination by Dr. Moll is not necessary to put the parties on equal footing.

[29] First, there was nothing new in the medical evidence since the examination by Dr. McGraw that might justify an examination by a neurologist. The only alleged new information is the plaintiff’s ongoing complaints of tingling in his arms and legs. These complaints are of long standing and even pre-date the accidents.

[30] Second, a neurological opinion has been obtained [by the plaintiff] which negates any correlation between the plaintiff’s symptoms and the motor vehicle accidents. Indeed, Dr. Shtybel’s resident made no findings of neurological impairment whatsoever. In other words, the only purpose of an independent medical examination by a neurologist would be to prove a negative, or, perhaps bolster Dr. McGraw’s opinion. This circumstance is different than the one considered in Kim v. Lin where there had yet to be any medical opinions proferred to explain ongoing (and even worsening) accident related complaints.

[31] Finally, the fact that the plaintiff has ongoing complaints that may be considered neurological symptoms does not warrant this second examination. The defence is “not entitled to pursue every potential medical possibility” to address the plaintiff’s subjective complaints: Lowry v. Spencer, (10 December, 1990) Vancouver Registry No. B883909 as cited in Trahan v. West Coast Amusements Ltd., 2000 BCSC 691 at para. 49.

For more on this topic you can click here to access my archived posts summarizing the judicial application of Rule 7-6(2).