Skip to main content

Can You Sue Twice For Damages From the Same Event?

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 104 Comments on Can You Sue Twice For Damages From the Same Event?


(UPDATE June 28, 2012 – the case discussed in the below post was reversed by the BC Court of Appeal in reasons for judgement released today; you can click here to read the Court of Appeal’s reasons)
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing this topic.
In last week’s case (Singh v. McHatten) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 motor vehicle collision.  Following the collision ICBC found the Plaintiff at fault.  Displeased with this decision, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants in small claims court asking the Court to decide the issue of liability.  The Plaintiff sought damages for his deductible and increased insurance premiums.  His trial succeeded with the Court finding the Defendants at fault and awarding damages to the Plaintiff.
Before the limitation period expired the Plaintiff sued for damages stemming from his personal injuries from the same collision.  He did so in the BC Supreme Court.  ICBC brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the Plaintiff was “estopped” from suing again due to the small claims court trial.  Madam Justice Loo disagreed and allowed the personal injury lawsuit to proceed.  In dismissing ICBC’s motion the Court provided the following reasons:

[31] In my view the cause of action in the prior Small Claims action is distinct from the cause of action in this Court. While the Notice of Claim filed by the plaintiff in Small Claims Court claimed “vehicle damage & repair costs”, it is clear on a review of the transcript of the proceedings that the plaintiff’s vehicle had been repaired by ICBC; he was not seeking damages for repair costs because ICBC had paid the repair costs. The primary issue was ICBC’s determination that the plaintiff was wholly at fault for the accident and the plaintiff’s increased insurance premiums. Counsel for the plaintiff made it clear that the claim for personal injuries and damages would be dealt with later, and that was understood by counsel for ICBC. On that basis neither the third nor the fourth criteria for cause of action estoppel, or the first criteria for issue estoppel have been met.

[32] The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Innes v. Bui and Evans v. Campbell. Whether issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel is applicable, at the end of the day the court must determine whether it should exercise its discretion to bar the action by reason of res judicata or whether there are exceptional or special circumstances that should apply.

[33] I find that all of the criteria necessary for cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel have not been met. If I am wrong, there are special circumstances not to apply res judicata for to do so would cause a real injustice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not had his day in court on his claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of the accident. It may be that the issue of liability isres judicata, but the application was not argued on that basis. Rather, it is argued that the plaintiff should have brought his claim for personal injuries at the same time he brought his action in Small Claims Court. In certain circumstances that may be correct but only if the claim can be brought within the monetary limit of Small Claims Court. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injuries has never been before a court and considered. To dismiss the plaintiff’s claim at this stage of the litigation would be denying the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on that issue and unjust.

[34] The application is dismissed with costs.

As a point of interest, the recent BC Court of Appeal case of Innes v. Bui is worth reviewing for the Court’s comments on appropriate parties to sue when the only dispute following a collision is ICBC’s determination of fault and the premium consequences that flow from this.

"Black Box" Data Evidence and Courtroom Admissibility

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on "Black Box" Data Evidence and Courtroom Admissibility


The July, 2011 edition of the Advocate has a useful article titled “Electronic Crash Data in Cars: Technical and Legal Perspectives“.  The authors (Arthur Ross and Jonathan Lawrence) take time to discuss the increasing availability of Event Data Recorder (“EDR”) information following motor vehicle collisions and the legal hurdles this data can pose when being introduced in evidence.
I recommend that anyone interested in this topic review the article in full.  In short, the authors conclude that “We suggest that the approach taken in Gratton more appropriately reflects the correct judicial approach when a court is asked to admit and then weight any EDR evidence and any opinion derived from it. There is no legislation in Canada specifically governing the admission into evidence of EDR data.  The federal and provincial Evidence Acts should be amended to permit the admission of the evidence either as a “business record” or on a basis similar to blood-alcohol test devices“.
The authors reference the following useful authorities:
R v. Berner
R v. Cianchino
R v. Gill
R v. Moxam
R v. Brander
R v. Lanza
R v. Gratton

"Special Costs" Clause Takes the Teeth Out of ICBC's Formal Settlement Offer

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized.


I’ve written many times about the risks and consequences formal settlement offers can create in the course of a personal injury lawsuit.  Interesting reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, refusing to give ICBC double costs after the dismissal of a lawsuit because of a ‘special costs‘ clause in their formal offer.
In this week’s case (Wong v. Lee) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 motor vehicle collision.  She sued her driver but the lawsuit was dismissed with a Jury finding the driver was not negligent.  Typically such a result obligates the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs due to the BC Supreme Court’s Loser Pays system.
Prior to trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer of $60,000.  In these circumstances the Court has the discretion to award ‘Double Costs‘.  ICBC, on the Defendant’s behalf, asked for the Court to make such an order.  Madam Justice Dardi refused, however, finding that the ‘special costs’ clause which is contained in many of ICBC’s formal settlement offers operates to create uncertainty in the settlement process.  The Court provided the following useful reasons:








[27] The plaintiff’s overarching submission is that the inclusion of para. 6 in Appendix A of the Offer to Settle is fatal to the defendants’ application for double costs. The Offer to Settle was subject to the conditions in Appendix A which provides in para. 6 as follows:

Nothing in this offer detracts from the Defendants’ right to seek special costs against the Plaintiff or his counsel above and beyond the Defendants’ entitlement to costs under this offer. Neither the making nor the acceptance of this offer shall be deemed a waiver or estoppel by the Defendants in respect to any reprehensible or improper conduct on the part of the Plaintiff and / or his counsel in respect of this proceeding. [Emphasis added.]

[28] Based upon these terms, even if the plaintiff had accepted the Offer to Settle, the defendants nonetheless would have been at liberty to pursue the plaintiff for special costs. Thus, there was a potential risk that the acceptance of the offer may not have ended all of the outstanding disputes between the parties.

[29] The Court of Appeal, in discussing Rule 9-1(5) in Evans v. Jensen, 2011 BCCA 279, articulated at para. 35 that “the most obvious and accepted intent of this Rule, namely to promote settlement by providing certainty to the parties as to what to expect if they make, or refuse to accept, an offer to settle”. The Court reasoned as follows:

[41]      This conclusion is consistent with the importance the Legislature has placed on the role of settlement offers in encouraging the determination of disputes in a cost-efficient and expeditious manner. It has placed a premium on certainty of result as a key factor which parties consider in determining whether to make or accept an offer to settle. If the parties know in advance the consequences of their decision to make or accept an offer, whether by way of reward or punishment, they are in a better position to make a reasoned decision. If they think they may be excused from the otherwise punitive effect of a costs rule in relation to an offer to settle, they will be more inclined to take their chances in refusing to accept an offer. If they know they will have to live with the consequences set forth in the Rule, they are more likely to avoid the risk.

[42]      This certainty in terms of the result of either making, accepting or refusing to accept an offer is also more conducive to the overall object of the Rules, which is “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits”.

[30] It clearly emerges from the authorities that an important objective of offers to settle under the Rules is to bring certainty and finality to litigation. The reservation of the defendants’ right to seek special costs from the plaintiff after the acceptance of the offer is antithetical to this objective. It cannot be said that the Offer to Settle provided a genuine incentive to settle. As was stated inGiles v. Westminster Savings and Credit Union, 2010 BCCA 282 at para. 88, “plaintiffs should not be penalized for declining an offer that did not provide a genuine incentive to settle in the circumstances”.

[31] In short, para. 6 in Appendix A of the Offer to Settle militates against an award of double costs…





[34] In weighing all of the factors, the most significant being the inclusion of para. 6 in Appendix A of the Offer to Settle, I conclude that the plaintiff should not be required to pay double costs.



ICBC Ordered to Provide Particulars in Support of "Wilfully False Statement" Pleading

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 3, Uncategorized. 53 Comments on ICBC Ordered to Provide Particulars in Support of "Wilfully False Statement" Pleading

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, ordering ICBC to provide particulars in support of an allegation that the Plaintiff provided a wilfully false statement.
In last week’s case (Biedermann v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was sued for damages following three motor vehicle collisions.  ICBC refused to indemnify the Plaintiff arguing that he was in breach of his insurance by making a wilfully false statement.
The Plaintiff sued ICBC for coverage.  ICBC denied liability and repeated the ‘willfully false statement‘ allegation in their pleadings.  The Plaintiff asked for particulars of this allegation but ICBC refused to provide these.  Ultimately the Plaintiff brought a successful application to compel ICBC to provide particulars.  In making the order Master Bouck provided the following helpful reasons:








[16] The plaintiff relies on Rule 3-7(22) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules (“SCCR”) which provides that the court may order a party to serve further and better particulars of a matter stated in a pleading (my emphasis).

[17] In its response, the defendant helpfully outlines the legal principles relevant to the application and interpretation of this Rule.

[18] One of the stated purposes for ordering particulars is to ensure that the “real issues between the parties” are brought “fairly forward without surprise”: Cansulex Ltd. v. Perry, 1982 CarswellBC (C.A.) at para. 16. The six objectives of an order for particulars are said to be:

· to inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet as distinguished from the mode in which the case is to be proved;

· to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at trial;

· to enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared with and to prepare for trial;

· to limit the generality of the pleadings;

· to limit and decide the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required; and

· to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not included.

Cansulex Ltd. v. Perry at para. 15

[19] These factors are consistent with the present objectives of the SCCR in having a matter determined in a proportionate, just, speedy and inexpensive manner: Rule 1-3…

[21] After reviewing the pleadings and relevant authorities, I have concluded that the Response to Civil Claim does not provide sufficient particularity to meet the objectives of both the SCCRand those outlined by the court in Cansulex.

[22] Neither the Response to Civil Claim nor the response to this application identify the nature of the “wilfully false statement”. The Response separately pleads (and the defendant discloses in its affidavit material) that the plaintiff may have failed to update both the territory and rating for the Volkswagen Golf and also misrepresented the principal operator. Those details provide some information to the plaintiff as to the basis for denying the sought after insurance coverage. However, it is not at all clear from the Response whether these documents represent the “wilfully false statement” or whether the defence is relying on some other written or oral statement or representation given by the plaintiff.

[23] Nor does the Response address in any particularity the basis on which coverage is denied for the July 2008 accident. The Response simply says that Mr. Biedermann was no longer the legal owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

[24] What is being sought by the plaintiff is not so much evidence which might support a finding that Mr. Biedermann made a statement or statements which were  “wilfully false”, but rather identification of what that “statement or representation” might be. Is it an insurance application form; a post-accident statement or representation; or some other form of communication? Without these particulars, the plaintiff (and the court) is left to guess whether such a statement or representation even exists…

[26] The defence has separately pled s. 75 (a) (ii) with respect to the 2009 accidents. However, s. 75 (c) is so broadly worded that the plaintiff (and the court) is unable to identify the nature of the impugned statement of misrepresentation with respect to any of the accidents.

[27] Accordingly, the order sought by the plaintiff is granted. Costs of the application will be to the plaintiff in the cause.









The Other Side of Bradley: Indivisible Injuries and Damage Deductions

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


In 2010 the BC Court of Appeal released welcome reasons for judgement (Bradley v. Groves) which made it easier for individuals to recover damages for “indivisible” injuries.  In short the Court confirmed that if two or more incidents caused an indivisible injury you could sue any of the party’s responsible for causing the harm and recover the whole of the loss.
There is, however, a downside to the benefits of Bradley v. Groves.  If you sustain an indivisible injury and receive compensation for it from one tortfeasor a subsequent tort feasor may be able to reduce their liability by the amount of the previous settlement or judgement.  This argument was considered in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court.
In this week’s case (Thomas v. Thompson) the Plaintiff sued for damages from a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  The trial judge found that some of the Plaintiff’s injuries were indivisible from those sustained in a 2002 collision.   The Plaintiff settled his claim for damages from the 2002 collision for $10,000.  Following trial the Defendant argued that the damage assessment for the 2005 collision should be reduced by $10,000 to take into account the previous settlement.
The Court noted that damages were assessed taking the Plaintiff’s pre-existing issues into account and that it would not be just to re-open the trial to allow for such a result.  Implicit in the Court’s judgement is that if the right evidence is tendered at trial such a deduction could be allowed.  Mr. Justice Brooke provided the following illustrative reasons:






[7] I did not accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he had made a full recovery from the 2002 accident. In assessing non-pecuniary damages for the effects of the accident of June 27, 2005, I took the plaintiff in the position he then occupied; that is, as continuing to make recovery from the earlier injuries. I did not treat him as if he were whole at the time of the second accident. Thus, I reject the submission that the settlement funds paid to the plaintiff following the first accident be deducted from the award for the damages sustained in the second accident. There is no double recovery.

[8] I refer to the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361 where the plaintiff had been injured in a second accident which aggravated injuries sustained in the first accident. At paragraph 38 the Court said this:

Without a finding of divisibility, the appellant’s arguments cannot succeed. The trial judge found as a fact that the plaintiff’s injuries from the first accident and the second accident were indivisible. The defendant and the other motorist both caused and contributed to the plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries. He also found those injuries were not separable. There is no basis on which to interfere with these findings of fact. Flowing from them is the conclusion of joint and several liability.

[9] On all of the evidence before me, I found that the plaintiff’s injuries in the first and second accident were indivisible.

[10] While I accept that I have discretion to reopen the trial, I am not satisfied that it is right and just to do so.







For an example of this deduction argument succeeding see the 2008 BC Court of Appeal decision of Ashcroft v. Dhaliwal.

Driver Faultless For Loss of Control Caused by "Agony of Collision"

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

(Update May 30, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s appeal from the below decision was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal in reasons for judgement released today)
As previously discussed, the principle of “agony of collision” can excuse a driver who loses control of their vehicle if the loss of control is preceded by an unexpected imminent danger not caused by them.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Penticton Registry, demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Robbins v. Webb) the Defendant was driving a pick-up truck in a southbound direction.  The roads were ‘very slippery‘ due to winter driving conditions.  The Plaintiff was approaching in the on-coming direction and began to fishtail.  The Defendant responded by hitting his brakes.  This caused the Defendant’s vehicle to lock up and proceed into the oncoming lane of travel.  The vehicles collided.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for the injuries he sustained in this crash.  The case was dismissed with the Court finding that the Plaintiff was careless in initially losing control and this resulted in the Defendants reasonable reaction.  In dismissing the lawsuit Mr. Justice Melnick provided the following reasons:








[13] Thus, I accept that Mr. Webb was fully in his own southbound lane when he first commenced braking. I also find that the reason Mr. Webb applied his brakes hard, locking them and causing his vehicle to slide into the northbound lane, was because Mr. Robbins had temporarily lost control of his vehicle due to the poor tread on the Cobalt’s tires coupled with his driving too fast for the icy road conditions, which caused the left rear of the Cobalt to skid sideways in a clockwise direction, crossing partially into the southbound lane. Mr. Webb reacted to a situation precipitated by Mr. Robbins, not the other way around.

[14] It may well be that if Mr. Webb had not braked, his vehicle would not have skidded into the oncoming lane. Mr. Robbins was probably in the process of regaining control of the Cobalt when he was struck. But, in the heat of the moment, one cannot say that Mr. Webb’s reaction was inappropriate. To his right was a steep uphill bank, so his options were very limited. He reacted to the position he found himself in as a result of the negligence of Mr. Robbins.









$210,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for Frontal Lobe and Brachial Plexus Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Brain Injury Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing damages for severe injuries following a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Harrington v. Sangha) the Plaintiff was struck by a tractor trailer in 2007.  Another motorist who initially lost control causing the tractor-trailer to collide with the Plaintiff was found fully liable for the incident.   The Plaintiff suffered a frontal lobe brain injury in addition to a brachial plexus injury.

(Frontal Lobe Graphic via Wikipedia)
The Plaintiff was disabled from employment as a result of the pain from the brachial plexus injury and the cognitive changes due to the frontal lobe injury.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $210,000 Mr. Justice Willcock provided the following reasons:




[183] There is no doubt that the plaintiff has been severely and dramatically affected by the injuries sustained in the January 18, 2007, motor vehicle accident. There is no doubt with respect to the extent of her physical injuries. There is convincing evidence that she has suffered a traumatic brain injury. That injury has affected her cognition and may have reduced her global intelligence. There is ample evidence from her family and friends that her behaviour has been significantly affected. She is irritable and disinhibited. Her memory and concentration are poor. These changes are typical of those experienced by people who have suffered frontal lobe injuries of the sort sustained by Ms. Harrington. She is affected by chronic pain and headaches. She requires significant medication to deal with her pain and that has further impacted her emotional state and her intellectual functioning. By all accounts she is now unemployable.

[184] Fortunately, she is still largely independent and capable. As the defendants point out, she appears, to the casual observer and even to trained professionals on first encounter, to be someone who is functioning well and behaving appropriately. She is still capable of enjoying many of the amenities of life and may do so to a greater extent if she benefits from certain of the chronic pain management programs recommended to her.

[185] It is true, as the plaintiff submits, that there is no “range” of devastating injuries. All devastating injuries should attract an award of general damages at the upper limit permissible. I am of the view, however, that while Ms. Harrington will be seriously affected for the balance of her life by the significant injury she sustained, her injury cannot properly be described as devastating. Unlike the plaintiff in Morrison v. Cormier Vegetation Control, she is not limited to minimal participation in the activities of daily living. She is unlikely to be shunned and the range of relationships open to her should not be forever limited. She appears, still, to have reasonable insight into her situation and condition and has in fact formed relationships since her accident. By suggesting an award that is marginally less than the upper limit, the plaintiff’s counsel implicitly acknowledges that this is not a case where the rough upper limit of general damages is an appropriate award.

[186] On the other hand, the defendants, by referring only to the examining experts’ first impressions of Ms. Harrington and her appearance in the witness box at trial, underestimate the dramatic effect of the injury upon her. There is no reference in the defendant’s submissions to the common findings of the neuropsychologists with respect to the nature and extent of the consequences of the head injury.  Nor is there any reference to the testimony of the many family and friends who testified with respect to the dramatic change in the plaintiff’s behaviour. Taking into account both the very significant limitations in her physical activities associated with her brachial plexus injury and the functional impact of her head injury, I am of the view that general damages in this case should be assessed at $210,000.




BC's Auto Insurance System: Not "Perfect" But Better than Most

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

In response to criticism of BC’s auto insurance rates ICBC’s CEO Jon Schubert recently commented that while BC’s auto insurance system is not“perfect” it works due to it’s robust compensation rights.   Jon provided the following comments:
You can travel across Canada and find a range of public and private auto insurance and diverse arguments both for and against each system. We believe our system in British Columbia works for a number of reasons. We know some provinces offer lower-priced auto insurance but we also know some others offer higher-priced auto insurance — including some with private insurance. Any discussion on insurance should be based not just on what you pay but what you get for your money. Our medical and rehab benefits, for example, are three times more than those offered in Alberta….
This is one instance where I agree with ICBC.  While I won’t get into the debate about whether a system of private auto insurance is better than public insurance, one thing BC has done right is keeping a full tort system in place.
While other Provinces have stripped the rights of those injured to the benefit of insurance company profits, British Columbia has continued to preserve the right of victims to seek full lawful compensation when injured through the fault of other’s carelessness.
It is artificial to compare BC rates to those of other Provinces without looking behind the rates to the rights of auto-collision victims to seek compensation.   As an example, if a person suffers severe soft tissue injuries in BC due to another person’s careless driving they can seek meaningful damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
The same injuries have been artificially capped in Provinces such as Alberta and Nova Scotia.  Ontario has also limited collision victim compensation rights and in a double blow are looking to reduce access to no-fault benefits.  Other Provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan have gone so far as to strip collision victims of the right to to sue for damages and instead instituted a WCB-like no-fault system.
Low rates are a good thing and provided the Government does not continue to raid ICBC’s revenues there is no reason why British Columbians could not continue to enjoy competitive rates and meaningful compensation rights when injured through the fault of others.

ICBC Under "No Obligation" To Advise You of Your Legal Rights

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

As previously discussed ICBC adjusters often operate in a legally permissible conflict of interest.  When dealing with ICBC it is important to know that “your” adjuster has no obligation to advise you of your legal rights regarding a claim for compensation against the at fault motorist.  This was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry.
In this week’s case (Morris v. Doe) the Plaintiff was injured in a hit and run collision.  She sued ICBC under s. 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act although the claim was dismissed at trial with Madam Justice Ker finding that the Plaintiff failed to make all reasonable efforts to identify the at-fault motorist.
The Plaintiff was ordered to pay ICBC costs following trial.  The Plaintiff opposed arguing this would “financially cripple” her and that such a result would be unfair because ICBC failed to advise the Plaintiff of the steps she needs to take to make a successful claim for compensation.  Madam Justice Ker rejected this argument finding that the law imposes no duty on ICBC adjusters to do so.  In upholding the costs award against the Plaintiff the Court provided the following reasons:











[8] During his oral submissions, counsel for the plaintiff argued that costs ought not to be awarded against the plaintiff as the defendant, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”), through its adjusters ought to have advised the plaintiff of the importance of immediately obtaining legal advice on the steps she needed to take to satisfy the unidentified motorist provisions of the Act.  Counsel appears to argue that it is this failure and circumstance connected with the case that renders it manifestly unfair to award costs against the plaintiff in this case, citing Currie v. Thomas Estate (1985), 19 D.L.R. (4th) 594 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 47 and the reference therein to the speech of Viscount Cave in Donald Campbell & Co. v. Pollack, [1927] A.C. 732 (H.L).

[9] No statutory authority or case authority was provided to support the proposition that ICBC through its employees has a duty to provide a potential plaintiff with a warning that it is in their interests to obtain legal advice.  Indeed, counsel recognized and seemed to suggest that the law, although not there yet, ought to be moving in that direction. ..

[51] It is clear from the decisions cited in my original judgment dismissing the action that ICBC has no obligation to advise a plaintiff of the nature of the steps they need to take in order to satisfy the court they have taken all necessary and reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the offending unidentified driver.

[52] I do not understand the jurisprudence or the governing statutory provisions to place any sort of positive obligation on ICBC through its employees to either advise a plaintiff of the steps they must take to ascertain an unknown driver’s identity or of the need to obtain independent legal advice on this provision.

[53] I cannot accede to counsel’s suggestion that ICBC or an insurer has a positive obligation to advise an insured of the need to obtain legal advice.  To do so would fundamentally change the nature of the contractual relationship between the insurer and insured and place the insurer in a position of quasi-authority requiring it to provide an element of legal advice, something adjusters and claims managers may not be well suited to do and may create a host of unanticipated and unforeseen consequences.

[54] While the comments of Barrow J. in Tessier are compelling as to the fairness that at least notifying a plaintiff of the provisions of the Act would appear to create, the fact of the matter is that there is no statutory authority mandating that ICBC advise or alert a potential plaintiff of the provisions of s. 24(5) of the Act.

[55] Moreover, the jurisprudence since 2003, and most recently re-stated in Wah Fai Plumbing, establishes that denying a successful litigant its costs based on pre-litigation conduct or for reasons that appear to impose quasi-liability on the successful party and sanction non-actionable conduct is not an appropriate or principled application of the costs rules.

[56] I must say again that, in this case, I have a great deal of sympathy for the unsuccessful plaintiff, particularly in light of ICBC’s failure to set her straight at the outset when it was apparent she did not understand the process.  However, by the time the statement of defence was issued in October 2007, it would have been clear to the plaintiff and her counsel that her case was in peril, or definitely not nearly as strong as initially believed.













If all of this seems unfair you can click here to read my views regarding a solution to this conflict of interest.

Pharmacare Benefits Non-Deductible From Cost of Future Care Award

Written by admin on . Posted in Cost of Future Care Cases.


Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing whether a Plaintiff’s award for cost of future care in a personal injury claim should be reduced by the availability of Pharmacare benefits.  In short the Court held that these benefits are non-deductible.
In yesterday’s case (Harrington v. Sangha) the Plaintiff suffered severe and disabling injuries following a collision with a tractor-trailer.   Her injuries resulted in future care costs of $488,495 including medication costs of $118,000.  The Defendant argued that this portion of the award should be reduced because British Columbia’s Pharmacare program may cover some of the expenses.  Mr. Justice Willcock rejected this argument and in doing so provided the following useful reasons:




[158] The short answer to that argument is that where the benefit in question is not available to individuals, because they have a remedy against a tortfeasor, where there is a provision in the plan for subrogation, or where there is an obligation on the recipient of the benefit to repay the benefit from the proceeds of litigation, an award will not result in double recovery. The availability of benefits paid on such terms should not reduce the award.

[159] As this court noted in MacEachern v. Rennie, 2010 BCSC 625 at para. 422:

Medication costs required as a result of a motor vehicle accident must be paid for by a motor vehicle insurer, and in such a case, PharmaCare is the insurer of last resort.

[160] It was the evidence of Mr. Moneo that the PharmaCare programme is not intended to be available to persons who have a tort claim for the cost of their medications. Counsel seeking to have the deduction made from the award was reduced to arguing that there will be double recovery if the plaintiff recovers an award for the cost of her medications and conceals the award from PharmaCare or if she squanders her award and again becomes dependent on the state to pay for her drug expenses.

[161] The award in this case is made in the expectation that Ms. Harrington will report the outcome and use the award as intended. The judgment cannot be founded upon the presumption that the plaintiff will make a fraudulent PharmaCare claim. In any event, PharmaCare will be aware of this judgment, having made submissions and having been given standing to address the issue.

[162] There is no real risk of double recovery in this case and no basis for an award other than that which is necessary to ensure the plaintiff will be in a position, without relying upon the state, to pay the cost of the drugs she requires.