Skip to main content

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

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


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 for damages.  The defence lawyer (instructed by ICBC) made a formal offer to settle the case for $75,000 plus costs up to the time that the offer was made with the Defendant being entitled to costs thereafter.  (this offer was made under the old Rule 37 which has now been repealed).
The Plaintiff initially dismissed the offer and continued in the lawsuit.   Three days before trial the Plaintiff accepted the offer.  The parties could not agree on the costs consequences.  The Plaintiff argued that Rule 37B (the rule that governed at the time of acceptance) gave the Court discretion to award her costs up to the date the offer was accepted.   Mr. Justice Verhoeven disagreed and held that when a settlement offer is accepted that specifically spells out the costs consequences there is no discretion for the Court to exercise under Rule 37B.  The Court provided the following reasons:
[28] But it has also been held that a settlement agreement containing terms as to payment of costs leaves the court with no room for the exercise of discretion pursuant to Rule 37B:  Buttar v. Di Spirito, 2009 BCSC 72 at para. 17..

[30] Madam Justice Gerow held that the court had no discretion to award costs in the matter before her. She stated at para. 11:

[11]      Both parties advanced arguments that the court has discretion under Rule 37B to make an order regarding costs. However, it is my opinion that the court has no discretion to make an order regarding costs in this matter. Mr. Buttar accepted the offer put forth by the defendants, including the offer regarding costs, without reservation. It is my view that Rule 37B does not confer a discretion on the court to set aside an agreement that has been entered into between the parties regarding costs.

[31] On this basis, where a party has specified the costs consequences of acceptance of its offer to settle, within an offer to settle to which Rule 37B applies, and a settlement agreement results in accordance with the offer, the court does not retain a discretion to depart from the terms of the agreement.

[32] Put another way, it remains open to litigating parties to make an offer to settle within the meaning of Rule 37B and to specify the costs consequences of acceptance of the offer. In my view this is a positive result. It allows the parties to create their own bargain. It provides for certainty, and avoids the need for applications to court where a settlement agreement is reached, while preserving the court’s discretion in cases where no settlement occurs…

[37] In my view the agreement that the parties made was unambiguous. The defendants’ offer was clear in relation to the costs consequence of acceptance; the defendants would pay the costs until the date of the offer, and if the plaintiff were to accept the offer after that date, then the defendants would be entitled to costs after that date.

[38] After July 1, 2008, when the new rule came into effect, the defendants’ offer remained open for acceptance in accordance with its terms. The defendants had not withdrawn it or amended it. The new rule affected the costs consequences in the event that the offer was not accepted, and the court went on to render a judgment. That did not occur…

[61] The plaintiff will receive costs in accordance with Appendix B, Scale B, for the time leading to delivery of the defendants’ offer to settle. The defendants will receive costs following that date. No argument was presented to me that there should be any distinction between the tariff items and disbursements. The applicable costs will include both tariff items and disbursements.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

More on Trials and Examinations For Discovery – Keeping Evidence Out For Lack of Relevance

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

As I’ve previously written, evidence given by a party at examination for discovery can be damaging.  The opposing side can read in portions of the transcript to the trial judge in an effort to advance their case or hurt yours.
A limit on this is relevance.  If the proposed discovery questions and answers are not relevant (even if no objection to relevance was made at the examination for discovery) a trial judge can keep the evidence from going in.  Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dealing with this practice point.
In yesterday’s case (More v. Bauer) the Plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury while playing hockey.  The Plaintiff claimed his helmet was negligently designed and sued the manufacturers of the helmet.   At trial the Plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to read in portions of the examination for discovery evidence obtained in pre-trial investigations.  Mr. Justice Macaulay refused to let certain portions of the proposed evidence in on the basis that it was not relevant.  While the result reached in this case is very fact specific the Court provided the following useful summary of the law of relevance and discovery evidence:

[4] The subrule, as applicable here, reads:

(27)      (a)        If otherwise admissible, the evidence given on an examination for discovery by a party or by a person examined under Rule 27(4) to (12) may be given in evidence at trial, unless the court otherwise orders, but the evidence is admissible only against

(i)         the adverse party who was examined,

(ii)        the adverse party whose status as a party entitled the examining party to conduct the examination under Rule 27(4) to (12), or                      …

[5] A plain reading of Rule 40(27)(a) strongly suggests that the evidence an examining party seeks to read in must be admissible in the usual sense; that is, the evidence must be relevant and not subject to any exclusionary rule. Even if the evidence is admissible, the wording further suggests that the court has a residual discretion to exclude it. In my view, the latter requires me to consider whether admitting the evidence at this stage of the trial would result in unfairness…

[11] I must determine questions of relevance having regard to the issues framed in the pleadings. Throughout, I have applied the description of relevance that Cory J. set out in R. v. Arp, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339, 166 D.L.R. (4th) 296 at para. 38:

38        … To be logically relevant, an item of evidence does not have to firmly establish, on any standard, the truth or falsity of a fact in issue. The evidence must simply tend to “increase or diminish the probability of the existence of a fact in issue”. [Citation omitted.] As a consequence, there is no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant. [Citation omitted.]

As is well known, questions of relevance are largely determined by applying common sense and experience within the above framework.

[12] I also take into account the more recent statement of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 298 at para. 30:

[30]      Relevance can only be fully assessed in the context of the other evidence at trial. However, as a threshold for admissibility, the assessment of relevance is an ongoing and dynamic process that cannot wait for the conclusion of the trial for resolution. Depending on the stage of the trial, the “context” within which an item of evidence is assessed for relevance may well be embryonic. Often, for pragmatic reasons, relevance must be determined on the basis of the submissions of counsel. The reality that establishing threshold relevance cannot be an exacting standard is explained by Professors D. M. Paciocco and L. Stuesser in The Law of Evidence (4th ed. 2005), at p. 29, and, as the authors point out, is well captured in the following statement of Cory J. in R. v. Arp, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339, at para. 38 …

As readers of this blog know the BC Supreme Court Rules are being overhauled effective July 1, 2010.   The Rule discussed in this post is reproduced in almost identical form and can be found at Rule 12-5(46) so this case ought to retain its value as a precedent moving forward.

Non-Pecuniary Damages for Fractured Tibia and Fibula With Intermedullary Nailing Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Ankle Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

(Illustration provided courtesy of Artery Studios Inc.)
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding damages as a result of a 2007 BC motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Falati v. Smith) the Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a vehicle.  He was walking on the sidewalk on Marine Drive in West Vancouver when the Plaintiff’s vehicle mounted the curb, drove across the sidewalk and pinned the plaintiff against a building.
The Plaintiff suffered orthopaedic injuries described as “a crush-type fracture to his left tibia and a fracture to the fibula“.  These injuries required surgical intervention with intermedullary nailing.
The Plaintiff made a reasonably good recovery although he continued to have symptoms of pain by the time of trial.   His orthopaedic surgeon gave the following evidence with respect to prognosis and disability:
At this stage, Mr. Falati has only a mild amount of identifiable impairment in the left leg, ankle and foot. He does have evidence of pain symptoms in the leg and left ankle and left foot. However, he is noted to have essentially near normal motor power function as well as near normal range of motion. As such, his current impairment level is low. Nevertheless, there is an impairment present and the exact diagnosis underlying this impairment remains unclear. As a result, defining the likelihood of this impairment remaining permanent is impossible. It is important to note that disability represents the difference between what an individual is expected to do or required to do, and what they are capable of doing, due to the presence of a physical impairment. Since Mr. Falati still does have some evidence of physical impairment, albeit mild, some element of disability does remain. The probability of such disability remaining on a permanent basis seems very low with respect to the left knee and left tibia specifically. However, with respect to the left ankle, a more clear diagnosis would be required prior to making any estimate of permanence
In assessing his non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $85,000 Mr. Justice Saunders reasoned as follows:
Neither of the orthopaedic surgeons whose reports are in evidence, Dr. Penner and Dr. Jando, have expressed an opinion that the plaintiff’s foot pain and resulting limitations are likely to be permanent; Dr. Jando has offered the option of further surgery to remove the hardware. The plaintiff’s general practitioner, Dr. Kates, has pointed to both surgery, and weight loss, as possible means of addressing the complaints of persistent pain. Dr. Kates does use the phrase, “some element of permanent left ankle disability”, but as he goes on to point to the remaining hardware as a possible cause, I do not take him to mean “irreversible”. Although there is some possibility of a permanent disability in the present case, the evidence does not establish this to be a probability. Taking such possibility into account, I award the plaintiff non-pecuniary damages of $85,000.

BC Injury Lawsuits and Expert Witnesses; Hired Guns Need Not Apply

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

I’ve written many times about the role expert witnesses play in injury claims.  From diagnosing injury, commenting on causation, prognosis, future care needs and disability expert witnesses play a crucial role in ICBC and other injury lawsuits.
In addition to experts called by the Plaintiff, the Rules of Court also permit the Defendant to retain their own experts in order to ‘level the playing field‘.
Expert witnesses owe a duty to the Court to present their opinions impartially and not to act as advocates for the side that hired them.  Sometimes, regrettably, experts forget this and stray into the field of advocacy.  When this happens the expert’s opinion can be rejected entirely or even be kept from entering into evidence in the first place.  Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, discussing this area of the law.
In today’s case (Hodgkins v. Street) the Plaintiff was involved in a BC Car Crash and was awarded damages of just over $650,000.  (You can click here to read my post summarizing the trial judgement)  The parties could not agree on what damages should be awarded for  a tax gross-up award and management fees and a Court application was brought.
Both the Plaintiff and Defendant produced expert reports from economists.  The Plaintiff argued that the Defence report ought to be rejected in its entirety because the defence expert was a “partisan advocate“.  Mr. Justice Kelleher disagreed with this submission but before reaching this conclusion gave the following useful summary on the role of expert witnesses in BC litigation:

[6] In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 BCSC 131 at para. 32, the court referred to the duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses discussed in National Justice Compania Naviesa S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. (“The Ikarian Reefer”), [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 68:

1.         Expert evidence presented to the court should be and should seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.

2.         An expert should provide independent assistance to the court by objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his or her expertise.  An expert witness should never assume a role of advocate.

3.         An expert should state the facts or assumptions on which the opinion is based and should not omit to consider material facts which detract from that opinion.

4.         An expert should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside of the expert’s expertise.

5.         If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because insufficient date is available, this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one.

…

[10] I am in respectful agreement with the guidelines put forward in the Ikarian Reefer.  As trial judges, we must be wary of advocacy dressed up in the guise of an expert’s report.

If you are involved in an injury lawsuit and are served with an expert report by opposing counsel that you think is not objective the above passage should be kept handy.  You can challenge the opposing party’s experts if they contain “advocacy presented in the guise of opinion evidence” and such objections should be raised to keep reports that cross the line out of Court.

Proving Your BC Injury Claim: A "Balance of Probabilities"

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 60 Comments on Proving Your BC Injury Claim: A "Balance of Probabilities"


When you sue someone in British Columbia for causing injuries (either negligently or intentionally) you need to prove your case.  If you fail to do so your case can be dismissed and you may end up paying the other party’s Court costs.
What is the test that needs to be met when proving your injuries?  Unlike criminal trials which require proof of a crime ‘beyond a reasonable doubt‘, civil lawsuits have a much lower burden of proof.  A Plaintiff in an injury lawsuit need only prove their claim on a ‘balance of probabilities‘ which means more likely than not.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing the civil burden of proof in an ICBC claim.
In today’s case (Costello v. Rafique) the Plaintiff was involved in a ‘relatively minor rear-end collision‘ in 2006.  He sued for damages.  The Plaintiff claimed the accident caused a back injury which continued to cause problems up until the time of trial.  The Defendant disagreed arguing the car crash was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s ongoing pain problems rather these were attributable to a previous back condition (the Plaintiff in fact underwent a decompressive laminectomy shortly before the collision).
Mr. Justice Melnick found that while the Plaintiff did indeed continue to suffer from back pain, and that the ongoing symptoms “may well be…the result of soft tissue injuries resulting from the accident” possibility is not enough to prove a case on the civil standard.  In dismissing the Plaintiff’s allegation of causation of ongoing injuries due to the collision the Court stated as follows with respect to the Civil Burden of Proof:

[16] It may well be that Mr. Costello’s continuing back pain is the result of soft tissue injuries resulting from the accident. However, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Costello has failed to persuade me that this is the case…

[17] Dr. Reebye’s carefully worded report really says it all:  “[t]he soft tissue injuries were responsible for his symptoms and limitation soon after the accident” [emphasis added] and, “[t]he injuries sustained were not severe enough to aggravate his pre-existing conditions.” I note that it is possible that Dr. Reebye is wrong. It could be that the whiplash from the accident did affect Mr. Costello’s spine in a way that affected the area of the surgery. But without a full and proper medical investigation with the aid of diagnostic imaging, I have no way of knowing that. The body of evidence that has been put before me on behalf of Mr. Costello, who bears the burden of proving his case on the balance of probabilities, just does not do that. The evidence neither convinces me that the soft tissue injuries from this minor rear-end collision have independently resulted in the debilitating pain and discomfort I have no doubt he now suffers, or that those injuries in some way affected the area of his spine which was the subject of the 2006 surgery or in some way caused his pre-existing condition to re-assert itself.

[18] I am convinced on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Costello did, indeed, suffer soft tissue injuries in the motor vehicle accident which caused him pain and discomfort for a period of time that cannot be quantified precisely but, before the time of trial, would have been resolved. Dr. Reebye’s suggestion in cross-examination that Mr. Costello could experience effects of the accident for five to ten years is implausible and at odds with his report. As noted above, I have no doubt that Mr. Costello is suffering back pain but I am not satisfied, to the standard required on a civil trial, that his current problems result from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. ..

Another Case Holds ICBC Insurance is Relevant Factor Under Rule 37B

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Settlement Law, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on Another Case Holds ICBC Insurance is Relevant Factor Under Rule 37B

Further to my recent post on this topic, another case was just released by the  BC Supreme Court considering whether the Court can consider the fact that the Defendant is insured when determining what costs consequences a formal offer of settlement should have in an ICBC Claim.
In today’s case (Cridge v. Ivancic) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 car crash in Surrey, BC.  The Plaintiff sued for damages.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant and the Court was asked to value the claim.
Prior to trial the Defendants (through their ICBC appointed defence lawyer) made a formal offer to settle the case for $50,000.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer and went to trial.  At trial the Plaintiff sought damages of over $100,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Court awarding just over $12,000 in total damages.
The Defendants brought a motion seeking that the Plaintiff pay their costs from the point of trial onward.   The Court held that it was not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to reject the formal offer until the week before trial.  As a result the Court awarded the Plaintiff her costs until that stage and the Defendants their costs from that time on.  The result was the costs cancelled each other out.  While there is nothing noteworthy about this result, the decision is worth reviewing because it is yet another precedent discussing whether insurance is a relevant consideration under Rule 37B.  Madam Justice Fenlon held that the existence of insurance is a fair consideration stating as follows:

[14] Under R. 37B(6)(c), another consideration is “the relative financial circumstances of the parties”. The defendants were represented by ICBC. The plaintiff was unrepresented; she is a retired accountant in her 70s, and appears to be of limited means, working only part-time each spring during tax season.

[15] There is conflicting case law on the issue of whether a defendant’s insurance coverage is relevant to the consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties. In Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372 at paras. 32-34, 90 B.C.L.R. (4th) 125 [Bailey], Hinkson J. held that the defendant’s insurance coverage should not be considered because the wording of Rule 37B(6)(c) of the Rules of Court does not invite such consideration and because an insurer is not generally a party to the litigation. Bailey has been followed on this point in various cases, including Abma v. Paul, 2009 BCSC 60 at para. 32, 66 C.P.C. (6th) 100, and A.E. v. D.W.J., 2009 BCSC 505 at para. 58, 91 B.C.L.R. (4th) 372.

[16] However, in Radke at para. 42, Boyd J. held that the fact that the defendants were represented by ICBC and “had substantially greater resources to finance a trial than the individual plaintiff” is a relevant consideration under R. 37B(6)(c). Radke was followed in Smith v. Tedford, 2009 BCSC 905, 77 C.P.C. (6th) 308, where Mr. Justice Grist stated at para. 16 that “[t]he ability to have a case advanced by experienced and well funded counsel is, to my mind, a resource that should be taken into account in exercising the judicial discretion stipulated under the new Rule.”

[17] I find Mrs. Cridge’s modest financial means and the defendants’ representation by ICBC to be a relevant consideration, although not a significant or determinative factor in my decision.

As pointed out in my last article on the topic, Rule 37B has been on the books now for almost two years.  The Court is clearly conflicted about whether the availability of insurance is a relevant factor under the rule.  When the New BC Supreme Court Rules come into force on July 1, 2010 Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9.  Rule 9 uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so the lack of clarity will likely continue.  In light of the on-going conflicting authorities it will be useful if the BC Court of Appeal addresses this issue.

The Catholic Sex Abuse Claims Scandal; Is the Corporate Standard Expecting Too Much?

Written by admin on . Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized. 2 Comments on The Catholic Sex Abuse Claims Scandal; Is the Corporate Standard Expecting Too Much?

The history of clergy abuse and cover up now seems to be catching up with the Catholic Church more than ever.The Vatican’s latest reply to this crisis referring to the problem as “petty gossip” is perhaps yet another example of the Church’s less than appropriate response to a very serious and longstanding problem.

Coming from my professional background I can’t help but think of this scandal in legal terms.What I’d like to do here is to address the topic of Clergy Abuse without the subject of religion entering the analysis.In essence, a legal overview of the problem.

 The question advanced in this post is simple; would the Church’s response to the Clergy abuse scandal withstand public scrutiny if the Church were nothing more than a large corporation?

When you remove religion from the Church what are you left with?The answer is a large, powerful, wealthy multi-national corporation.

To judge the Church by the standards we would apply to a corporation we need to first strip down the Church to some of its basic “corporate” elements.This corporation has a top down hierarchy (from the Pope, to Bishops to Priests).The “corporate” church also has the following:

1.Assets and personnel all over the world

2.A hiring policy that specifically only allows men to fill important positions (priests)

3.These employees are prohibited from having sexual relationships with women

4.These employees are prohibited from marriage

5. To fulfill the needs of the business the corporation requires these employees to have close contact with their customers (the parish)

6. To further fulfill the needs of the business these employees are required to sometimes form close relationships with young children

7.These employees teach the children that the corporation (the Church) is their only hope to eternal salvation

8.If the rules of the Corporation are not followed the children are taught the fate of their very soul is at stake.

When viewed this way it is clear we are dealing with a very powerful corporation.Now, let’s assume that some of this hypothetical corporation’s employees were guilty of acts of sexual abuse against children.Let’s further assume that the abuse of children by these employees was known by people in the hierarchy of the corporation, with the knowledge perhaps going as high as the CEO.Let’s also assume that the corporate response was the same as the Church’s has been to date. Lastly, let’s assume the CEO of the corporation told its shareholders that such “petty gossip” should not affect the organization’s well being.Reprehensible?Unimaginable?But this seems to be exactly what the Church’s response to the scandal has been.

How would we expect a corporation to act in these circumstances?I imagine we would expect the corporation to at the very least do the following upon learning of on-the-job criminal acts of its employees:

1.Fire the employee

2.Gather and preserve evidence documenting the criminal act

3.Contact the local authorities and report the crime

4.Cooperate in the prosecution against the employee

5.Contact the victims and offer assistance

6.Conduct a due diligence review and see if the scope of the criminal behavior is greater than what has already been revealed

7.Immediately take all reasonable steps to guard against this problem from arising in the future

The hypothetical corporation discussed in this post would never receive your or my business if they failed to take the above basic steps in the aftermath of a sexual abuse scandal, would it? If the corporation tried to cover up the abuse rather than take accountability they would not stay in business for long. The downfall of the organization would be swift and spectacular once news of such a scandal came to the public’s attention.

The good news for victims of abuse is that the Courts of British Columbia have little difficulty in treating Religious Organizations like corporations in Civil Lawsuits in the event of on the job sexual abuse.    Abuse vicitms do have the right to sue not only their abuser but also their employers and in certain circumstances the ‘corporation’ can be held vicariously liable for the misdeeds of their ’employees’.

$35,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Low Back Pain With Poor Prognosis

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 46 Comments on $35,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Low Back Pain With Poor Prognosis

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding a Plaintiff just over $64,000 in total damages as a result of BC car crash.
In this week’s case (Elgood v. Ellison) the Plaintiff was injured in 2006 when he was struck by a vehicle in Langley, BC.  The Plaintiff was walking in a marked cross-walk with the right of way when the Defendant driver made a left hand turn and struck the Plaintiff.  Fault was admitted and the trial focused solely on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.
The Plaintiff suffered minor injuries to his legs and neck which quickly and fully recovered.  His most serious symptom was low back pain which persisted from the time of the accident through trial.   The evidence accepted by the Court was that the Plaintiff had mechanical pain around the lumbar spine and that these symptoms may be an ongoing problem for the Plaintiff.
(highlighted portion of illustration depicts the lumbar spine)
In awarding the 65 year old Plaintiff $35,000 for his non-pecuniary damages Mr. Justice Bracken made the following notable findings:

[39]        Dr. Hirsch concluded that the plaintiff has made a full recovery with respect to his legs and that he had a relatively minor neck injury that has now essentially resolved.

[40]        The more difficult problem is the lower lumbar spine area and Dr. Hirsch said that this condition was likely caused by the accident.  He described it as likely mechanical in nature and that it is exacerbated by stress or loading on the back.  He believes that the plaintiff should continue his home-based exercise program and perhaps attend for structured appointments with a kinesiologist or physiotherapist.  He also thought that some exercise such as tai chi, yoga, pilates or water-based exercises would be helpful.

[41]        He concluded that the plaintiff’s restrictions were attributable to chronic low back pain that was caused by the accident and that the prognosis for complete recovery was guarded given the plaintiff’s age and the duration of the symptoms.

[42]        He did believe that the plaintiff should be capable of performing his domestic chores but that he may have to pace himself and that he will have ongoing problems with more strenuous activities such as lifting, snow shovelling or completing significant household repairs.  He did not foresee any need for future care or for any surgery.

[43]        In summary, it appears that the plaintiff’s leg and shoulder injuries resolved very quickly and his neck pain diminished gradually over time, to the point where it is now only occasional pain and of a non-debilitating nature.  He had some early headaches which have now become occasional.

[44]        The significant pain that the plaintiff suffers is chronic low back pain that Dr. Hirsch predicts will likely be with him for the foreseeable future.  No doubt the low back pain will prevent him from doing many jobs, particularly those that require long periods of sitting.  Given his age and background, it is most likely that sedentary jobs will most likely be what are available to him.  He has sharply reduced his recreation, although some of the intense recreational and physical activities engaged in by the plaintiff would likely diminish in intensity over time due to the normal aging process regardless of his injury.  He will likely still have the ability to engage in mild recreational activities. The plaintiff says that even mild recreation or physical activity is too painful for him.

[45]        As Dr. Hirsch pointed out at p. 6 of his January 20, 2009 report:

Three years have elapsed since Mr. Elgood suffered his low back injury in the subject motor vehicle accident.  Given the duration of his symptoms, the prognosis regarding complete resolution of his low back pain has to be viewed as guarded at this juncture.  Given the temporal profile to date, I would consider it more likely than not that Mr. Elgood will experience low back pain indefinitely.  Low back symptoms of sufficient intensity will probably limit his ability to perform tasks which biomechanically stress his low back…

[51] While the plaintiff has been able to carry on with work, he and his wife both said that he has only been able to do so by enduring a level of chronic pain.  Based on the opinion of Dr. Hirsch, which I accept, his condition is not likely to be alleviated over time.  Bearing in mind his age and the impact of his injuries on his personal life and work life since the accident, in my view, the range of damages is between that of the plaintiff and defendant and I assess general damages at $35,000.

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Whiplash and likely Zygapohyseal Joint Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, awarding a Plaintiff damages as a result of a BC car crash resulting in whiplash claim with a likely zygapophyseal joint injury.
Zygapophyseal joints (also known as facet joints) are the interconnecting joints joining vertebral bodies to one another and it is not uncommon for injury to occur to these joints in motor vehicle collisions.

In this week’s case (Lamont v. Stead) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear end collision caused by the Defendant in Burnaby, BC.  Fault was admitted leaving the Court to deal with the extent and value of the injury claim.   The Defendant accepted he injured the Plaintiff however argued that these injuries substantially resolved within 9 months.  The Plaintiff disagreed giving evidence that her neck injury symptoms were ongoing through trial.
In support of her case the Plaintiff advanced evidence from Dr. Rhonda Shuckett, a well respected BC rheumatologist.  Dr. Shuckett testified that the Plaintiff likely had permanent injuries explaining as follows:

I suspect her left neck injury since the MVA is mainly attributable to soft tissue and perhaps zygapophyseal joint injury…It is already approaching two years since the subject MVA and she remains symptomatic. I think there is a good chance that she is going to continue with her current level of pain. She is not disabled but is impaired to some degree…

Mr. Justice Bernard accepted this evidence and awarded the Plaintiff damages accordingly.  In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss (damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $60,000 the Court made the following findings:

[30] The evidence establishes that the plaintiff’s prospects for any significant improvement in her neck pain are poor. As a consequence, she faces a considerably altered future; particularly as it relates to her life outside the workplace. Her chronic pain deprives her of much of the enjoyment she found in being physically active, in attending to her family, and in participating in family activities…

[35] In summary, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s pain is chronic, partially disabling, and likely permanent. Similarly, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the plaintiff’s neck pain was caused by the defendant’s negligence, in the sense that it directly caused or materially contributed to it. There is a substantial connection between the plaintiff’s chronic neck pain and the collision, and the plaintiff has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that but for the negligence of the defendant, she would not have chronic neck pain: see Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333…

[40]        The loss of enjoyment of life due to chronic neck pain is undoubtedly greater for Ms. Lamont than it would be for a person who has led a more sedentary lifestyle. Ms. Lamont has been actively engaged in strenuous sport throughout her adult life, and this has been a significant feature of life with her husband and children. It is, understandably, a source of great frustration and sadness to her that she has been deprived of the capacity to engage in most of the activities she loved, and to experience them with her family.

[41]        Given the relatively profound nature of the loss to this plaintiff (including compromised household management and parenting), the chronic pain which she must endure, the age of the plaintiff, and the very poor prospects for significant improvement, and, having regard to the similarities between the cases cited by the parties and the case at bar, I assess the non-pecuniary losses of the plaintiff at $60,000.

More on ICBC Injury Claims and Late Defence Motions For Medical Exams

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 54 Comments on More on ICBC Injury Claims and Late Defence Motions For Medical Exams


Further to my recent post on this topic, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that ICBC may face an uphill battle when they apply for a Defence medical exam when the trial of the action is imminent.
In this week’s case (Agesen v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in 2 separate motor vehicle accidents.  The Plaintiff sued and both cases where scheduled to be heard at the same time.  In support of his case the Plaintiff served medico-legal reports from a psychiatrist, a psychologist, an occupational therapist, his GP and a vocational assessment.  The Plaintiff attended a defence medical exam with a neurosurgeon and a report was served by the Defendants.
The Defendants then requested that the Plaintiff be assessed by an orthopaedic surgeon.  The Plaintiff would not consent and a court motion was brought.  The Master who presided granted the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to be assessed by the orthopaedic surgeon.  This appointment was to take place less than one month before trial.  The Plaintiff appealed and succeeded.  In overturning the Master’s decision Madam Justice Morrison reasoned that the late application would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff.  Specifically, on the topic of timing of defence applications for medical exams the Court stated as follows:

[38]        In Benner v. Vancouver (City), Mr. Justice N. Smith refused an application for a medical examination that came three weeks before trial.  The application was three weeks before trial and the examination itself would have been less than two weeks before trial.  In paragraph 19 of his judgment, Smith J. confirmed that the purpose of Rule 30 was “to place the parties on an equal footing in their ability to obtain medical evidence in a case where injuries are alleged.”  He also referred to Rule 40A which requires service of expert opinions 60 days before trial, where a report delivered less than 60 days before trial is inadmissible unless the court were to order otherwise.  In that case, the court found that the plaintiff’s physical condition was clearly put in issue by the pleadings.  The defendants had full advantage and protection of routine production of medical records.  I find that decision is applicable to this appeal.

[39]        In dismissing the application for a medical examination at that late stage, at paragraph 35, Smith J. stated, “… the Rules of Court are intended to level the playing field as between the plaintiff and the defendant, a defendant who takes no timely steps to exercise its rights under the rules does so at its peril.”..

[45] In my view, it would be prejudicial to the plaintiff at this date to order an IME four weeks before a ten day jury trial.  That the plaintiff has serious injuries is not a surprise to the defence.  That his claim is substantial should certainly not have been a surprise.  Any advantage to the defence at this point in time would be outweighed by prejudice to the plaintiff, not only because of his problems in dealing with examinations, depositions and preparation for trial, but also because of the very real possibility that a late medical opinion could well result in plaintiff’s counsel having to seek an adjournment of this trial, in order to meet unexpected or opinion evidence that may be prejudicial to the plaintiff.  In this case, the balancing of prejudice must be in favour of the plaintiff, given the chronology of events.

As readers of this blog know the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules are being overhauled in July 2010.  Some of the biggest changes in the new Rules relate to expert evidence and you can click here to read my article discussing these changes.  The Court will continue to have the power to order multiple medical exams in particular circumstances but one thing that will change is that the concept of ‘proportionality’ will be introduced into the analysis.  I will continue to post about these decisions as the new Rules is developed in its application by the BC Supreme Court.