Skip to main content

$50,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Crossover Toe" Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Foot Injury Cases. 47 Comments on $50,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Crossover Toe" Injury

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing non-pecuniary damages for ‘crossover toe’ sustained in a collision.
In today’s case (Chow v. Schuler) the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant’s vehicle while crossing a crosswalk.  Although the Defendant disputed fault he was found fully liable for the collision.  The Plaintiff suffered a knee strain and eventually developed cross-over toe which required surgical correction.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $50,000 Mr. Justice Kent provided the following reasons:
[58]         There is no doubt that the plaintiff did suffer pain and disability both in the immediate aftermath of the accident and the later development of “crossover toe” and the surgical treatment of same. Her mobility was significantly affected and she has been unable to fully return to all of her pre-accident recreational activities including, of course, ballroom dancing. However, while the plaintiff’s pain and discomfort has not completely disappeared, she testified she presently only experiences pain if she walks too long or too fast or if she otherwise puts pressure on her leg in attempting to move objects or the like.
[59]         The plaintiff did seek counseling assistance from a professional psychologist at the suggestion of her family doctor. She was experiencing nightmares about being struck by vehicles and she was having difficulty sleeping. She developed a fear of crossing the road. She testified that the counseling did assist and that today she has no such fears and nightmares are rare.
[60]         An award of general damages for non-pecuniary loss must be fair to all parties and fairness is measured against awards made in comparable cases. This, of course, is only a rough guide as each case depends on its own unique facts. The factors usually considered in making these types of awards, as outlined by the Court of Appeal in numerous cases including Boyd v. Harris, 2004 BCCA146 and Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, include:
a.     Age of the plaintiff;
b.     Nature of the injury;
c.     Severity and duration of pain;
d.     Nature and extent of resulting physical and mental disability;
e.     Emotional suffering;
f.      Impairment of life including family, marital and social relationships; and
g.     Loss of lifestyle.
Here, having regard to all of these factors as well as the cases cited by counsel, I award the plaintiff general damages in the amount of $50,000.
 
 

BC Seeks to Overhaul All Terain Vehicle Regulation

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.


The BC Government announced the introduction of Bill 13, the Off Road Vehicle Act, which seeks to overhaul the Province’s system regulating the use of off road vehicles.
You can find the text of the proposed legislation here.
Below is the BC Government’s press release:
VICTORIA – Bill 13, the Off Road Vehicle Act introduced today, promises certainty, safety and regulatory structure for thousands of off-road enthusiasts.
The proposed Off Road Vehicle – or ORV – Act replaces the 40-year-old Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act with a modern management structure, designed to align with existing regulatory regimes at minimal cost.
Increased use of quads, snowmobiles and other ORVs has helped British Columbians get out and enjoy the beauty of the province’s backcountry. Bill 13 will help ensure these vehicles are driven in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
The act, if passed and brought into force, will:

  • Establish a one-time registration system specifically designed to integrate with the pre-existing structure of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s vehicle registry, reducing implementation costs. ORVs will have to be registered and display a clearly visible number plate before they can be operated on Crown or other public land.
  • Allow the development of regulations on the rules of operation (such as wearing helmets), safety standards and conditions of use for a wide range of modern ORVs, including snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles or “quads”, dirt bikes and utility terrain vehicles.
  • Assist in identifying stolen or abandoned ORVs, by requiring ORVs to be registered in a database that is accessible to peace officers at all times.
  • Provide officers with more effective enforcement tools to target the small number of irresponsible ORV owners that endanger others or damage sensitive habitat. This includes the ability to stop and inspect ORVs for violations, seize an ORV for safety or evidence purposes, and increase the maximum fine for offences from $500 to $5,000.

Included in the proposed ORV legislation is an amendment to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act establishing the ORV Trail Management Sub-account. This will ease the process of providing future investments directly into developing and maintaining trails, delivering lasting benefits to the ORV tourism industry in rural communities.
 The proposed ORV Act is the result of extensive consultation, and represents a fair compromise for all user groups. Implementation, including registration provisions, is anticipated in the fall of 2014.
 
 

$80,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Fractured Wrist With Residual Complicaitons

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wrist Injury Cases. 55 Comments on $80,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Fractured Wrist With Residual Complicaitons

Adding to this site’s archived database addressing damages for wrist injuries, reasons for judgement were released this week by BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with a wrist fracture following a cyclist collision.
In this week’s case (Jang v. Ritchie) the Plaintiff was walking along a trail when the Defendant “was cycling along the same trail travelling in the same direction as Mr. and Mrs. Jang. Mr. Ritchie lost control of his bicycle and drove into Mr. Jang striking him in the back“.  The Defendant was found fully at fault for the collision.  The Plaintiff broke his wrist which required immediate surgical attention and went on to cause long term limitations.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 Madam Justice Fenlon provided the following reasons:
[5]             I also find that Mr. Ritchie’s negligence caused Mr. Jang’s injuries. The injuries were fully described in the medical opinion of Dr. Melvin Serink, an orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Serink stated in his opinion:
… [Mr. Jang] suffered a comminuted fracture involving his left distal radius and ulna. He subsequently was treated with a closed reduction and a Hoffman external fixator. Postoperatively he developed Sudeck’s dystrophy with generalized pain and swelling related to his wrist and PIP joints of his left hand. As a result of his injury, he has been left with permanent soft tissue contractures involving the PIP joints of the fingers involving his left hand. He also has been left with complaints of pain and weakness related to his left wrist associated with generalized stiffness. … [Mr. Jang] is aware of stiffness associated with loss of extension and flexion. As a result of his Sudeck’s he does have decreased power and dexterity related to the fingers of his left hand. …
His range of motion shows loss of extension and flexion by approximately 50% percent. Supination is decreased by approximately 20%. His power grip is significantly decreased secondary to generalized pain related to the PIP joints.
X-rays of his left wrist from January of this year [2012] [show] the complete loss of the space involving the radiocarpal joint. The un-united ulnar styloid is evident. The early osteophyte formation involving the distal radial styloid is also evident.
I have paraphrased slightly to insert Mr. Jang’s name and so on.
[6]             I accept Dr. Serink’s uncontradicted opinion in this case. His observations are consistent with Mr. Jang’s testimony and my own observations of Mr. Jang’s left hand, which is fixed in a somewhat claw-like position. I also find that Mr. Jang’s condition is permanent. The progressive nature of the injury-induced arthritis in his hand will, if anything, increase Mr. Jang’s symptoms as time goes by. Dr. Serink examined Mr. Jang and provided the following opinion in this regard:
As a result of the destruction of the articular cartilage involved in his original fracture, he has developed significant post-traumatic degenerative arthritis. The soft tissue contracture which occurs as a result of the Sudeck’s dystrophy will be permanent. As a result, he will be left with complaints of pain, weakness and generalized stiffness. These complaints will not significantly improve with rest, time or further physiotherapy. At the present time [Mr. Jang] is well motivated and is using Tylenol on a p.r.n. basis for pain control….
[11]         Mr. Jang was in a cast for three months and underwent extensive physiotherapy. Despite that, he continues to have constant pain. He described the pain as eight on a scale of 10. He gets shooting pains on activity. Mr. Jang manages the pain by using Tylenol 3 and heat and by massaging his hand.
[12]         Mrs. Jang touchingly described her husband of 30 years as “hard on the outside, but soft on the inside, a nice man”. She and her daughter, Angela, both described the difficulties they have observed Mr. Jang having now with even simple tasks such as opening a jar.
[13]         Counsel for Mr. Jang took me to a number of cases with somewhat similar facts including Paras v. Muirhead (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 17; Ferguson v. All-Can Express Ltd., [1988] B.C.J. No. 78 (S.C.); Jackson v. Jeffries, 2012 BCSC 814; Lowe v. Larue, [1998] A.J. No. 1465 (Q.B.); and Kumlea v. Chaytors (1993), 76 B.C.L.R. (2d) 337 (C.A.). Counsel submits non-pecuniary damages in the range of $60,000 to $85,000 would be appropriate.
[14]         While the cases provided to me are helpful, they are not, of course, determinative. Each case must be decided on its own facts. The cases referred to me include some differences such as plaintiffs who are younger or plaintiffs with soft tissue injuries as well as a wrist injury. In many of the cases, the injuries the plaintiffs experienced were not as severe as the injury experienced by Mr. Jang.
[15]         Having considered all of the cases and the particular facts of this case, I am satisfied an award of $80,000 is appropriate for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Double Costs Application Allowed To Proceed Despite Entered Order Addressing Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Uncategorized. 48 Comments on Double Costs Application Allowed To Proceed Despite Entered Order Addressing Costs

In interesting reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, Chief Justice Hinkson determined that a double costs application could proceed despite the entry of an order addressing costs.
In today’s case (Keller v. Pearson) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.  Prior to trial ICBC offered to settle the case for $70,000.  The Plaintiff rejected the offer and proceeded to trial where the case was dismissed with costs payable to the Defendant.  The Court did not address the consequences of the formal offer.  An order was entered which read “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants’ costs in this action, subject to the Plaintiff being at liberty to request to reappear before the Court to make submissions in respect of same.”.
The Defendant then sought double costs relying on their pre trial formal offer.  The Plaintiff argued the Court was functus officio.  Mr. Justice Hinkson disagreed and provided the following reasons addressing the narrow exception to address costs following an entered order:
[10]         The plaintiff contends that it is he, and he alone, who was permitted by the entered order to reappear before the Court to make submissions as to costs, and that the defendants have no basis upon which to advance any submissions with respect to double costs.
[11]         While it may have been open to the defendants to make submissions seeking double costs before the entry of the order, the order addresses their entitlement to costs, subject only to the plaintiff’s request to reappear before the Court. No such request has been made by the plaintiff, and the defendants’ entitlement to costs in the matter has been determined by the summary trial judge.
[12]         In Buschau v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2004 BCCA 142 at paras. 26–27, 237 D.L.R. (4th) 260, Newbury J.A. stated:
[26]      …The Court also had the power to amend the entered order on the basis that it contained an error in expressing the manifest intention of the Court. As stated by Rinfret J. for the Supreme Court of Canada in Paper Machinery, [[1934] S.C.R. 186]:
            The question really is therefore whether there is power in the Court to amend a judgment which has been drawn up and entered. In such a case, the rule followed in England is, we think — and we see no reason why it should not also be the rule followed by this Court — that there is no power to amend a judgment which has been drawn up and entered, except in two cases: (1) Where there has been a slip in drawing it up, or (2) Where there has been error in expressing the manifest intention of the court (In re Swire [(1885) 30 Ch. D. 239]; Preston Banking Company v. Allsup & Sons, [[1895] 1 Ch. 141]; Ainsworth v. Wilding, [[1896] 1 Ch. 673]). [at 188; emphasis added.]
Paper Machinery has been cited on numerous occasions by Canadian courts, including this court in R. v. Blaker (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 344, at 347, and in Racz v. District of Mission (1988) 22 B.C.L.R. (2d) 70. In the latter case, the Court set aside a “consent dismissal order” entered by a solicitor who had acted without authority. The Court found that it had inherent jurisdiction to correct what would otherwise be an abuse of process and ruled that it was not necessary to require the plaintiff to bring a fresh action in order to set the order aside. On this point, the Court agreed with Chief Justice Sinclair in Morstad v. Quintal (1980) 14 Alta. L.R. (2d) 369 (Q.B.), who had said that [at p. 371]:
… it must surely be within the inherent jurisdiction of this court to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff on the present motion without the necessity of going through the sterile routine of commencing a separate action, a proceeding which would not result in the bringing forth of additional facts or otherwise advancing the administration of justice.
Hutcheon J.A. in Racz noted that in Morstad, the order nisi as entered had been “based on a mutual mistake of fact.” (At 73.)
[27]      Even if the error in the order was not a “clerical” one or an error arising from an “accidental slip or omission” within the meaning of Rule 41(24), then, the court below had the inherent jurisdiction to correct the order insofar as it did not reflect its manifest intention. In the absence of any evidence that the respondents had taken any irrevocable step in reliance on the order, or would suffer undue prejudice were it corrected, I conclude that the Court should have exercised this jurisdiction and corrected its order. In my view, it cannot be in the interests of justice for the respondents to rely on that order to retain a sum to which they have no entitlement in principle.
[13]         I am unable to see that either of the two exceptions discussed in Paper Machinery apply in this case. I am advised that the entered order was drafted by counsel for the defendants.  There is no suggestion that there was any “slip” in drawing it up, nor does it evidence any error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. There is no suggestion before me that Smart J. was asked to order double costs, and there is no basis upon which it could be argued that he intended to do so.
[14]         Nor is this a situation such as that dealt with by Mr. Justice Burnyeat in GC Parking Ltd. v. New West Ventures Ltd. et al, 2004 BCSC 1700, 9 C.P.C. (6th) 245, where after an order awarding costs on Scale 3 against the defendants was made, the order entered made no reference to costs as the plaintiff specifically advised the defendants that it intended to make further submissions respecting an alleged entitlement to double costs. In that circumstance, Burnyeat J. held at para. 17 that:
[17]      The court can be functus officio where the entered order accurately deals with matters which were dealt with in the Reasons for Judgment but retain jurisdiction to deal with matters which were not set out in the entered order but which were dealt with in the Reasons for Judgment. Bavelas v. Copley, [2000] B.C.J. (Q.L.) No. 523 (B.C.S.C.) dealt with an order entered with respect to liability and damages but not with respect to costs. Drost J. held that the entry of the order rendered the court functus offico “except with respect to the issue of costs” (at para. 20).
[15]         While I respectfully agree with this statement by Burnyeat J., in the case before me, the entered order reflected the disposition of costs as set out in the reasons for judgment.
[16]         However, in Smart v. McCall Pontiac Buick Ltd., 2001 BCSC 467, [2001] B.C.J. No. 682, special costs were awarded to the plaintiff in a written judgment, and an order was entered providing for special costs. An application was then brought by the plaintiff for double costs based upon an offer to settle made by the plaintiff. Mr. Justice McKinnon reasoned that despite the entered order, he could hear the plaintiff’s application for double costs arising from the defendants’ failure to take advantage of an offer, which was substantially below the amount awarded, as he was unaware of the offer to settle and unentitled to know about it when delivering his reasons for judgment.
[17]         I am unable to distinguish the factual underpinnings in Smart from those in this case. Despite the entry of the order in this case, based upon the principle of judicial comity discussed in Re Spruce Hansard Mills Ltd., [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590, 34 C.B.R. 202, I find that I am obliged to hear the defendants’ application for double costs.
 

BC Court of Appeal Strips Modest Diminished Capacity Award "As a Matter of Principle"

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wage Loss.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal stripping a Plaintiff of modest damages awarded for diminished earning capacity.
In today’s case (Kim v. Morier) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.   Despite her injuries she was able to work 12-15 hour days as a floor plan technician. She had no lost income by the time of trial.  Her injuries lingered and were expected to indefinitely though the “degree of disability would be mild, that her level of disability is “fairly small” “.
In overturning the $10,000 damage assessment for this loss the BC Court of Appeal provided the following comments on the evidentiary foundation needed for diminished earning capacity damages:
[6]           On appeal, the defendant submits that the Court erred in making an award under this head in the absence of a finding of a “real and substantial possibility” that Ms. Kim’s earnings in future would be impaired. The defendant relies in particular on Roberts v. Kidd (1998), 52 B.C.L.R. (3d) (C.A.), where Mr. Justice Hollinrake for the majority noted that it is not sufficient for an award under this head for the plaintiff to testify as to a loss of confidence or ability to project herself without showing a “functional” element. (Mr. Justice Lambert dissented on this point.) In the result in Roberts, this Court set aside the award for diminished income and incapacity.
[7]           More recently, in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140, 3 B.C.L.R. (5th) 303, this court emphasized at paras. 21, 32, and 33 the requirement for the plaintiff to meet the onus of showing at least a “real possibility” of future loss, as opposed to a theoretical loss. Similarly, in Steward v. Berezan, 2007 BCCA 150, 64 B.C.L.R. (4th) 152, the Court discussed the comment of Madam Justice Southin in Palmer v. Goodall (1991), 53 B.C.L.R. (2d) 44, to the effect that it was “impossible to say” the plaintiff in that instance would not suffer reduced earning capacity in the future. Mr. Justice Donald wrote in Steward at para. 17
But the language in question there was used in the context of appellate review and, with respect, it cannot be transposed to an original analysis at the trial level. The claimant bears the onus to prove at trial a substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss, and the court must then award compensation on an estimation of the chance that the event will occur: Parypa v. Wickware, 1998 BCCA 88, 169 D.L.R. (4th) 661¶ 65.
This is not a heavy onus, but it must be met for a pecuniary award to be justified.
[8]           In my view, the trial judge here did err in equating the loss of capital asset here with the plaintiff’s own perception. As the cases demonstrate, that is not enough. The plaintiff must show that it is a realistic possibility she will be less able to compete in the marketplace – with economic consequences, not merely psychological ones. In my view as well, the trial judge’s statement made after the award was pronounced, that Ms. Kim “may” be less capable of maintaining her disciplined approach to work also fell short. As we suggested to counsel this morning, the word “may” is essentially speculative and does not equate to a finding of a real possibility.
[9]           Mr. Carta said all that could be said in support of the award, but I agree with the defendants that as a matter of principle the findings here did not support an award for loss of earning capacity.
[10]        I would allow the appeal and set aside the award under this head. I would also order that the parties bear their own costs, given that this appeal was brought as a matter of principle.
 

ICBC Projects Nearly $1Billion in Profit From 2013-2016 ; Government Profit Scoops to Continue

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

It’s that time of year again.  With the BC Government’s Budget also comes ICBC’s 2014-2016 Service Plan.  As always, these documents give insight into the actual and projected financial health of ICBC.
ICBC is projecting nearly $1 Billion in profits from 2013-2016 and the Government plans to scoop an average of $160 Million annually over this period.
The below excerpt is from the Budget:
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia: ICBC’s net income is forecast to average
$214 million annually over the fiscal plan period. The outlook assumes average annual
growth of 1.7 per cent in the number of insured vehicles and a 4.0 per cent average
annual increase in claims costs. Over the fiscal plan period, ICBC is forecast to remit an
annual average $160 million of its excess Optional insurance capital to the consolidated
revenue fund to support core government services.
Here are the details of ICBC’s projected financial performance over this period:

 

$45,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering but Resolving Soft Tissue Injury

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

Adding to this site’s archived case summaries addressing soft tissue injury damages, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, assessing damages for a lingering whiplash injury.
In this week’s case (Kelly v. Kotz) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 collision.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The Plaintiff suffered a whiplash type injury which caused chronic headaches.  Although there was improvement with time some symptoms still lingered at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $45,000 Madam Justice Hyslop provided the following reasons:
[100]     I do find that in the accident the plaintiff suffered neck and upper back injuries, and that headaches are a symptom of those injuries…
[105]     She stated that six months after the accident there were days that she felt normal, though there were times that the headaches got worse as to severity and duration and affected her level of concentration. These descriptions are consistent with her reporting to Sarah Robson and Carey Jones.
[106]     When Dr. Brownlee saw the plaintiff, she had normal range of motion and some pain with flexion, particularly with the extension of her neck. The plaintiff told Dr. Brownlee that her symptoms gradually improved, but never resolved themselves completely…
[122]     I conclude that the plaintiff’s symptoms have improved as she described to Dr. Brownlee and will continue to improve.
[123]     In assessing non-pecuniary damages, I considered the plaintiff’s special circumstances and the case law cited to me by both plaintiff and defendants.
[124]     I award $45,000.00 for non-pecuniary damages.
 

$120,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Vestibular Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 53 Comments on $120,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Vestibular Injury

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court,  New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for chronic vestibular issues following a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Reynolds v. M. Sanghera and Sons Trucking Ltd.) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 collision.  The Defendant’s tractor trailer rolled down a hill, unoccupied, colliding with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The plaintiff suffered a variety of soft tissue injuries along with vestibular dysfunction.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $120,000 Mr. Justice Davies provided the following reasons:
[52]         Mr. Reynolds suffered serious and debilitating injuries in the collision, which have had a profound impact upon his enjoyment of life. The most serious of those injuries are the injuries to his neck and the vestibular injuries he suffered which separately or in tandem have caused fear of further injury from rapid movement, migraine headaches, anxiety, fear of driving and other travel, and sleeplessness. The injuries are still unresolved and will likely continue to affect all aspects of his enjoyment of life.
[53]         I accept the evidence of the lay witnesses that prior to the collision Mr. Reynolds was a man of almost boundless energy and enthusiasm for life. While he still tries hard to work in his business and does so with some success, his enjoyment of his work is now compromised by his medical conditions caused by the collision. His life is now far more one-dimensional than before, with work and the energy required to continue with his business now dominating all other aspects of life for which he now has both less energy and time because of the toll that simply working now exacts.
[54]         As to the prognoses for improvement in future, Dr. Underwood opined that it is extremely guarded. Dr. Stevens concluded that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Reynolds will return to his pre-collision state. She also stated that Mr. Reynolds downplays his symptoms.
[55]         Although I consider the award for non-pecuniary damages suggested by the defendant to be inordinately low, I also do not agree with Mr. Arnold’s submission that an award of $150,000 is appropriate in this case. In my view, the injuries suffered by Ms. Felix which resulted in a non-pecuniary damage award of $200,000, and by Ms. Cantin which resulted in a non-pecuniary award of $150,000, were more serious and debilitating than those suffered by Mr. Reynolds. They involved more serious physical injuries requiring surgery, and more severe psychological problems in the case of Ms. Felix, and more cognitive and psychological problems in the case of Ms. Cantin.
[56]         In all of the circumstances I find that an award of $120,000 will appropriately compensate Mr. Reynolds for his past, present and future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. That award recognizes the impact of the debilitating effect of the neck injury suffered by him and the related dizziness and vertigo that are similar to those suffered by Mr. Moukhine and Mr. Yang, both of whom were awarded $90,000, but also allows compensation for the debilitating effects of his past, present and future mood and anxiety disorders and the sleeplessness which has so dominated his life since the collision and will likely continue.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For L3-4, L4-5 Disc Injuries

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

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages following a disc injury caused by a collision.
In this week’s case (Shipley v. Bye) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 rear end collision. The Defendant was found at fault.  The Plaintiff suffered multilevel disc issues following the crash which continued to pose some problems at the time of trial.  The Plaintiff worked at a warehouse and “was limited to unskilled or semi-skilled work“.  While he was able to eventually return to his occupation the injuries were expected to limit his ability to engage in heavy physical demands.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Kloegman provided the following reasons:
[19]         In his report of September 17, 2013, Dr. Weiss concluded that:
1.     The motor vehicle accident produced an acute discogenic injury at the L4-5 level with possible L5 nerve root irritation. The plaintiff’s radicular symptoms had resolved and the disc prolapse had retracted.
2.     The current pain that the plaintiff was feeling was multi-factorial from a discogenic lesion at the L4-5 level, a pre-existing but a symptomatic dysplastic L3‑4 facet joint which had become inflamed from the accident, and soft tissue/ligamentous pain at the ilio-lumbar region which Dr. Weiss could not say was caused by the accident.
[20]         Dr. Weiss also opined in his report of September 2013 that the plaintiff had lost the physical capacity and functionality to perform heavier forms of work related activity. He stated that it is also likely that the plaintiff will remain compromised in his ability to perform heavy physical work due to persistent back pain, some of which was directly attributable to the accident. Dr. Weiss could not say that the accident had caused any acceleration in degenerative disc disease of the plaintiff’s lower back.
[21]         With the exception of the cause of the possible nerve root involvement at L5, Dr. Weiss’ conclusions were not challenged or contradicted and I accept them as accurate. I find that an L4-5 discogenic injury and an aggravation of a previously asymptomatic congenital dysplastic L3-4 facet joint were caused by the motor vehicle accident. Any other injuries or pain complained of by the plaintiff during the material time have not been proved, on a balance of probabilities, to have been caused by the subject accident…
[25]         I have reviewed the authorities provided to me by both counsel, some of which were the same. The most factually similar cases are Esau v. Myles, 2010 BCSC 43; Roy v. Storvick, 2013 BCSC 1198; Peso v. Hollaway, 2012 BCSC 1763; and Jackson v. Jeffries, 2012 BCSC 814. It appears from these cases that the plaintiff’s damages are in the range of $70,000 to $100,000. In my view, the plaintiff here should be awarded the sum of $85,000 for non-pecuniary damages.
 

Informal Settlement Offers Revoke Prior Formal Settlement Offers

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 9. 63 Comments on Informal Settlement Offers Revoke Prior Formal Settlement Offers

Important reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, confirming that when a party who made a formal settlement offer under the Rules of Court tenders a subsequent informal settlement offer the initial offer is withdrawn.
In today’s case (Arsenvoski v. Bodin) the Defendants issued a formal settlement offer.  After some counter offers the Defendants rejected the Plaintiff’s offers and responded that “my clients would, however, accept a Consent Dismissal Order in exchange for a waiver of their costs” (an offer less generous than their formal offer).
The Plaintiff then attempted to accept the formal offer.  Mr. Justice Weatherill confirmed that the old offer was no longer valid finding that the common law applied.  In reaching this conclusion the Court provided the following reasons:
[12]         This is a case of first instance under Rule 9-1.  All of the cases relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel were in the context of the Rule 37, which expressly provided for how a formal offer to settle could be withdrawn before acceptance.  The one exception is the decision of Madam Justice Fitzpatrick in Janzen where she found that, although there had been a clear and unequivocal rejection by the plaintiff of the defendant’s counter-offer, there had not been a clear and unambiguous revocation by the plaintiff of her earlier formal settlement offer.  In that case, the plaintiff had not made a new settlement offer.
[13]         Here, the defendants’ Second Offer stated: “My clients would, however, accept a Consent Dismissal Order in exchange for a waiver of their costs”.  Those words amounted to a new settlement offer.  There was nothing unclear or unequivocal about them.
[14]         I agree with defendants’ counsel that in the absence of language in Rule 9-1 regarding how and when a formal settlement offer is withdrawn, the common law applies.
[15]         I do not accept the argument that a formal settlement offer is not revoked by an informal settlement offer.  While that may have been the case under the language of former Rule 37, it is no longer the case under Rule 9-1.  A settlement offer, formal or informal, is revoked upon the communication of a new settlement offer, formal or informal.  I agree with the following statement of the law by Wilson J. in Sidhu v. Sekhon, [1997] B.C.J. No. 102 (S.C.) at para. 8:
I think interpretation of the rule contemplates the application of principles of contract law.  And that those principles must be implemented before resort is had to policy considerations.  In my view, those principles establish a number of precepts.  First, an offer may be withdrawn before acceptance.  It is sufficient for that purpose, if the offeree has actual knowledge that the offeror has done some act inconsistent with the continuance of the offer.  Further, the addition of a new term or condition, to an earlier offer, before acceptance, is the withdrawal of the earlier offer, and the submission of a new offer, of which the new condition or term is a part.  From the time the new condition is submitted, the earlier offer is withdrawn, and is no longer open to acceptance or rejection, by the party to whom it was presented.  Finally, there can be only one offer outstanding at a time.  A later offer to the same offeree, on the same subject matter, has the effect of cancelling the prior offer.