Skip to main content

Tag: bc injury law

BC Court of Appeal Rejects ICBC's Argument for "Expanded" Hit and Run Victim Obligations

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 70 Comments on BC Court of Appeal Rejects ICBC's Argument for "Expanded" Hit and Run Victim Obligations


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal rejecting ICBC’s arguments trying to impose “expanded” requirements for hit and run victims to be compensated for their injuries.
By way of background individuals injured by unidentified motorists can sue ICBC directly for compensation but there are statutory requirements that need to be complied with to succeed with such a claim.  The most litigated issue in these claims is whether the Plaintiff took “all reasonable efforts” to identify the at fault motorist as required by section 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.
In this week’s case (Nicholls v. ICBC) Plaintiff was involved in a single vehicle motorcycle accident in 2005.  He lost control of his motorcycle when he “encountered a diesel fuel spill on the highway“.  He alleged an unknown motorist was at fault for leaving this spill on the road and sued ICBC directly for his damages.  ICBC applied to dismiss the lawsuit arguing the Plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to determine who was responsible for the diesel spill.  Mr. Justice Saunders disagreed and dismissed ICBC’s application.
ICBC Appealed arguing the trial judge applied the wrong test and that motorists must meet “an expanded test of reasonableness” in attempting to identify the unknown motorist.  The BC Court of Appeal rejected this argument finding no expanded obligation exists.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[29] The main proposition from Leggett is that the test of reasonableness in s. 24(5) has a subjective component. In the words of Taylor J.A.:

[11]      I do not think the words “not ascertainable” should be strictly interpreted, so as to mean “could not possibly have been ascertained.” I think they are to be interpreted with reference to subs. (5) so as to mean “could not have been ascertained had the claimant made all reasonable efforts, having regard to the claimant’s position, to discover them.”

[12]      The test seems to me to be subjective in the sense that the claimant must know that the vehicle has been in an accident and must have been in such a position and condition that it would be reasonable for the claimant to discover and record the appropriate information. But the claimant cannot be heard to say: “I acted reasonably in not taking the trouble to find out.”

[Emphasis added.]

[30] This is confirmed by this Court’s decision in Etter v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 1999 BCCA 281, 126 B.C.A.C. 144, where Madam Justice Ryan, for the Court, stated at para. 5, that the test in s. 24(5) of the Act was summarized in para. 11 of Leggett.

[31] Thus, the only qualification on the requirement of “all reasonable efforts” in s. 24(5), is the subjective aspect of the test that requires the “position and condition” of the plaintiff to be considered in determining what efforts are reasonable in the circumstances. In all cases, the single standard to be met is one of reasonableness.

[32] In sum, I am not persuaded that the chambers judge erred in describing the test in s. 24(5) as one of reasonableness. In citing the statutory provision he was alive to the requirement on the respondent to demonstrate that “all reasonable efforts” had been made in the circumstances to ascertain the identity of the unknown tortfeasor. He then determined whether, in the circumstances of this case, considering the respondent’s subjective circumstances at the time of the accident, and based on a cost-benefit analysis of his efforts, or lack thereof, after the accident, the respondent had met the standard required by the provision. In my view, in the circumstances of this case, he did not err in adopting this approach to the issue.

ICBC's LVI Defence Rejected Yet Again

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.

I’ve written about this topic too many times to give a lengthy introduction other than to say it is clear that the “Low Velocity Impact” Defence is not a legal principle.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, yet again demonstrating this.
In today’s case (Cariglino v. Okuda) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 collision.  She was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended.  Fault was admitted.  She suffered various soft tissue injuries.  The vehicle sustained $724 in damage and the Defendant advanced the classic LVI defence arguing that this little damage “indicates the relatively minor nature of the collision and the likelihood that the complaints of injury and loss made by the plaintiff are either not related to this collision or are embellished.”.
Mr. Justice McKinnon rejected this argument and in doing so provided the following comments:

[33] No medical opinions were proffered by the defence, rather defence submitted that the plaintiff’s evidence is “unreliable” as she downplays the role of significant family stressors in her life, fixating on the collision as the sole cause of all of her problems, both before and after the collision. Curiously, defence accepts that the plaintiff is credible but not reliable. That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

[34] I found the plaintiff to be generally credible and, for the most part, a reliable historian. Certainly she had stresses in her life that created difficulties but she was able to manage these much more easily before the collision. A defendant takes a plaintiff as he finds her. Here the defendant has caused injury to the plaintiff who was in a somewhat fragile state, given her many family issues.

[35] The defendant contends that the very minor nature of the collision would render “improbable” the nature and extent of the injuries the plaintiff contends she suffers. I was not provided with opinion evidence to support that contention and thus am unable to accept the bald proposition that minor damage equals minor injury.

The Court accepted that the Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries which largely improved in the first year following the crash and with further therapy should fully recover.  Non-Pecuniary damages were assessed at $35,000.

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Aggravation of Fibromyalgia; Rule 15 Soft Cap Exceeded

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 15, ICBC Fibromyalgia Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for an aggravation of pre-existing fibromyalgia.
In this week’s case (Paradis v. Gill) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  Fault was admitted.  Despite expressing some “reservations in accepting the entirety of the evidence put forth in the plaintiff’s case” Mr. Justice Masuhara accepted that the collision caused an aggravation of pre-existing fibromyalgia which was on-going by the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 the Court provided the following reasons:
[73] Applying the principles of causation as set out in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; and most recently in Farrant v. Laktin, 2011 BCCA 336, as well as recognizing the comment that courts should exercise caution when there is little objective evidence of continuing complaints of pain persisting beyond what the defence asserts is the normal recovery period, I find that the Accident aggravated Ms. Paradis’ condition of fibromyalgia.  My view is that Ms. Paradis’ pain is predominantly in the mild to moderate range (though it can increase) and relates to her lower back; that she suffered from back and neck pain as well as headaches prior to the Accident but not as great; that she is able to stand far longer than she says; that she has the capacity to lift more than she asserts; and can engage in more activities than the physical capacity concludes.  The plaintiff also has full range of motion at her neck, shoulders, elbows, forearms, wrists, lower back, hips, knees, ankles and feet.  A significant part of her physical restrictions are not substantially related to aggravation from the Accident but rather to the unrepaired injury to her left knee, the osteoarthritis found in her knees, as well as her weight.  However, I find that she has suffered some loss of capacity…

[83] Ms. Paradis had a history of back, neck and knee pain, and headaches prior to the Accident.  Also, the medical evidence indicates that Ms. Paradis has full range of motion in all areas of her body, from her neck to her feet.

[84] The authorities referred to by the plaintiff in support of its position on quantum largely do not deal with persons with a pre-existing condition of pain comparable to the plaintiff.  The cases also deal with persons who enjoyed activities that were more significantly impacted by their injuries than in the instant case.  In my view, the injuries in the cases submitted by the defendant are somewhat more comparable to the plaintiff.  Also, I accept that Ms. Paradis’ level of pain and disability can be significantly controlled with proper management.  The defence’s position that some recognition for the plaintiff not taking reasonable steps to reduce her weight is addressed later under mitigation.

[85] In all of the circumstances, I assess general damages as $40,000.

This case also appears to be one of the first cases to be prosecuted under the Fast Track with damages exceeding the soft cap.  Despite the cap set out in Rule 15-1(1)(a), Rule 15-1(3) states that “nothing in this rule prevents a court from awarding damages to a plaintiff in a fast track action for an amount in excess of  $100,000“.  This week’s case was apparently prosecuted under the fast track (as is evidenced by the Court’s costs award set out in paragraph 119) and had global damages of $116,238 assessed.

Motorcyclist Crossing the Centre Line Found Fully Liable for Collision

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

Reasons for Judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing fault for a two vehicle collision involving a motorcycle and a cube van.
In last week’s case (Hale v. MacEwan) the Plaintiff motorcyclist was travelling southbound on 207th Avenue in Maple Ridge BC when he collided with the Defendant’s vehicle which was travelling in the opposite direction on the two lane street.  While the Court heard competing versions of events Mr. Justice Harvey concluded that the Plaintiff, whose blood alcohol limit was “twice the statutory level of impairment” failed to navigate the ‘hairpin turn” depicted in the below satellite image:

The Plaintiff crossed into the Defendant’s lane of travel and the collision occurred.  The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was partially to blame for driving “too close to the centre line“.  Mr. Justice Harvey rejected this argument finding that the Defendant was appropriately in his own lane of travel.  In dismissing the claim the Court provided the following reasons:

[59] Here I am able to say with some precision where the accident occurred and the distance of the defendant’s container from the centre line. As noted, I am satisfied he was with in his lane of travel. The negligence of the plaintiff has been made out. He failed to maintain his vehicle within the travelled portion of the roadway for his direction of travel.

[60] The remaining question is this: was the defendant so close, as was the case in Watson, as to make his actions unreasonable?

[61] In concluding that he was not, I distinguish the situation from that which occurred in Watson, to the facts here. Here, the violation by the plaintiff was both unusual and unexpected.

[62] Neither driver testified to a situation which should have caused the defendant to consider that the plaintiff would fail to negotiate the corner. His speed was not an issue and he seemingly, according to all witnesses, had control of his vehicle as he entered the curve…

[67] Here, unlike in Watson, the distance between the outer edge of the van and the centre line was 20-25 cm or 9-10 inches. The front of the van, while not perfectly centered within the defendant’s lane, was set back from the centre line even further.

[68] Whatever contact occurred between the defendant’s mirror, the plaintiff, his passenger, and/or his vehicle, did not occur in the plaintiff’s lane of travel.

[69] To require the defendant to position his vehicle farther from the centre line in anticipation of the negligence of the plaintiff requires a standard of perfection, not reasonableness.

[70] In the result I am satisfied that the accident occurred wholly as a result of the plaintiff’s negligence. The action is dismissed.

Advance Payment Orders and Your ICBC Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 13. 82 Comments on Advance Payment Orders and Your ICBC Injury Claim


While Defendants in lawsuits are generally not obliged to make any advance payments to a Plaintiff, in unique circumstances the BC Supreme Court can compel a Defendant to pay an advance.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this judicial power and the circumstances when it should be exercised.
In last week’s case (Gill v. West) the Plaintiff was involved in 10 motor vehicle accidents for which he was suing for damages.  Liability was admitted in some of the actions.  The Plaintiff alleged that the various crashes caused indivisible injuries and he was disabled as a result.  He applied for various orders including an order that he be advanced “$150,000 forthwith on account of damages“.   Madam Justice Wedge dismissed the Plaintiff’s request and in doing so provided the following comments on this area of the law:

[8] The plaintiff is frank to admit that it seeks the order concerning liability in the one action, and the order to have the fourth action heard with the other three, for the express purpose of obtaining the advance payment order. The plaintiff acknowledged he cannot obtain an order for advance payment of damages unless it is granted in conjunction with another order.

[9] In the case of Lines v. Gordon (2009), 90 B.C.L.R. (4th) 52 (C.A.), our Court of Appeal made it clear that the Rules of Court do not give this Court jurisdiction to make a stand alone order for an advance payment of damages, nor does this Court have inherent jurisdiction to do so.

[10] In the Lines decision, the Court referred to the wording of then Rule 1(12), now Rule 13-1(19), which states as follows:  “When making an order under these Rules, the court may impose terms and conditions and give directions as it thinks just.”  Based on that wording — and specifically the words “when making an order under these Rules,” — the Court in Lines stated that there must be a temporal connection between an order for an advance payment and another order…

[17] I will now turn to the law governing this application. While Lines v. Gordon states that there must be a temporal connection between the order for advance payment of damages and the granting of another order, temporal proximity is only one factor. More broadly, the order for advance payment must be a just one in all of the circumstances:  Serban v. Casselman (1995), 2 B.C.L.R. (3d) 316 (C.A.).

[18] The question is always whether the circumstances of the primary order, in conjunction with which the advance payment order is sought, are sufficiently compelling to justify an advance payment of damages. The authorities make clear that a payment of damages in advance of trial is only to be made in exceptional circumstances arising from the making of the primary order. For example, where the defendant applies for an adjournment of a personal injury trial and the plaintiff’s circumstances are financially tenuous, it may be just in the circumstances to order an advance payment of damages in conjunction with the order for an adjournment. However, such an advance payment order will not be made unless the judge is completely satisfied there is no possibility the assessment of damages at trial will be less than the amount of the advance payment:  Serban v. Casselman. Further, the court will exercise its discretion to order an advance payment only where liability is not an issue:  Andruschak v. Helina (1993), 89 B.C.L.R. (2d) 320 (S.C.); Wilkinson v. Martin, 2010 BCSC 113.

[19] In the present case, there is no substantive connection between the orders sought and the order for advance payment. The trial was recently adjourned, but that was at the behest of the plaintiff, not the defendant. The application for an order that the fourth action be heard with the other three was not necessary, as the defendants consented to the order before the application was brought. I note as well that the adding of the fourth action did not necessitate the adjournment of the trial.

[20] Further, the application for the finding of liability in one action is not of itself a proper basis for an advance payment order. There is nothing in the circumstances of a formal finding of liability in the one action that would make an order for an advance payment just or necessary in the circumstances of this case. In short, there is simply no substantive trigger for an advance payment.

[21] In addition, with seven of the ten defendants denying liability, I am not persuaded it would be just in the circumstances to order that the defendants in all actions be jointly and severally liable for the advance payment of damages. Whether there ought to be joint and several liability on the part of the defendants is an issue that must be determined at trial and should not be determined on an application for advance payment.

[22] For all of these reasons, and despite the able and forceful submissions of plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff has not satisfied me that the orders sought ought to be granted, with the exception of the first order that all four actions be heard together, which will go by consent. The application for the remaining orders is dismissed.

Scope of "Representations of Counsel" at Case Planning Conferences Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 5, BCSC Civil Rule 7. 46 Comments on Scope of "Representations of Counsel" at Case Planning Conferences Discussed


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing the scope of appropriate applications at Case Planning Conferences and further the prohibition of affidavit evidence in this venue.
In today’s case (Gill v. A&P Fruit Growers Ltd.) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 slip and fall incident.  The Defendant was found 70% at fault for this incident.
As the damages trial neared the Plaintiff brought an application to allow him to introduce evidence from two physicians by way pre-trial deposition.  The Defendant opposed arguing this order should not be made and further that such applications should not be heard at a Case Planning Conference.  Mr. Justice Willcock disagreed and provided the following feedback about the scope of CPC applications:

[17] There is still some uncertainty with respect to the scope of the prohibition against hearing applications supported by affidavit evidence on a case planning conference.  In order to effect the objectives of the Rules by making orders designed to resolve disputes efficiently and in a cost-effective manner on the merits, in my view, it will occasionally be necessary to rule on the manner in which evidence will be adduced at trial.  In some circumstances, even when such matters are hotly contested, they may be determined without affidavit evidence.  That may be the case where the issue may be determined on the basis of representations of counsel as officers of the court.

[18] It has long been the case that the courts have given evidentiary weight to the representations of counsel with respect to evidence to be called at trial, availability of witnesses and procedural questions going to trial management.  In Nichols v. Gray (1978), 9 B.C.L.R. 5 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a chambers judge’s discretion to give weight to statements of counsel relating to the evidence and the conduct of trial.  It is in that context that the new Supreme Court Rules were enacted.  The prohibition against hearing applications supported by affidavit evidence must be interpreted in the light of that practice.

[19] I adopt as applicable to case planning conferences the views expressed by N. Smith J. in Jurczak v. Mauro, 2011 BCSC 512, and by Gray J. in Enns v. Cahan, 2011 BCSC 54, in addressing the similar provision in the trial management rule prohibiting the granting of orders requiring affidavit evidence: that it is for the trial management judge to decide whether a particular application requires affidavit evidence and whether any affidavits that have been tendered are relevant.

[20] In the case at bar, as in Jurczak, the evidence in the affidavits that were before me added nothing to the submissions of counsel and counsel’s advice to the court with respect to matters that ought to be canvassed at a case management conference, specifically the witnesses availability for trial and the importance of cross-examination of those witnesses to the defence case.  The affidavit evidence that I would have to weigh on the application was like that described in para. 14 of the judgment in Jurczak:

[14]      All of that relates to matters of evidence that counsel expected or wanted to put before the trial judge, the availability of that evidence, and the readiness of the defendant to proceed to trial.  Those are matters of which counsel are expected to advise the court at the TMC and the court is, of course, entitled to assume counsel’s statements are true.  Affidavits in which their legal assistants simply say the same thing about these procedural matters are of no further assistance.

[21] The enumeration of orders that may be made at a case planning conference is exhaustive but Rule 5-3(1)(k) confers a broad discretion on the case planning judge to make orders respecting expert witnesses and Rule 5-3(1)(v) confers a broad discretion to make any order that advances the objectives of the Rules.  The judicial exercise of these discretionary powers requires that some consideration be given to the nature of the orders more specifically enumerated in Rule 5-3.  The Rules contemplate active judicial management of litigation and, in particular, judicial regulation of the role of expert witnesses at trial.  The Rules require that case planning and trial management be conducted with an eye to efficiency and the proportionality of the expense of the process to the value, importance and complexity of the matters in issue.  In my view, an application for an order that expert witnesses be deposed before trial rather than testifying by a video conference at trial is clearly an order of the type that may be made at a case planning or trial management conference, if the factual matrix necessary for making such an order can be established.  Such an order is in the nature of the procedural orders enumerated in Rule 5-3.

Why Physical Examination Is Not Always Necessary for a "Balanced Playing Field"

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

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that a physical examination is not always necessary for parties to put themselves on a ‘balanced playing field‘ in a personal injury claim.
In this week’s case (De Sousa v. Bradaric) the Defendant appealed from a Master’s decision refusing to permit a second psychiatric independent medical exam of the Plaintiff.  You can click here for my original post discussing the initial applicaiton.
As previously summarized, the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 collision which allegedly caused physical and psychiatric consequences.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendants had the Plaintiff assessed by a psychiatrist of their choosing.  This psychiatrist (Dr. Davis) concluded that there was “no psychosis“.
Shortly after this the Plaintiff was admitted in hospital on multiple occasions.  She was ultimately diagnosed with “chronic paranoid schizophrenia” by her treating physicians.  These records were shared with Dr. Davis but despite the diagnosis from treating specialists he “rigidly and categorically rejected any diagnosis of a psychotic conditions“.  For this reason the Master refused to order a second examination.
In the appeal Mr. Justice Smith allowed the introduction of new evidence, specifically a further report from Dr. Davis indicating that he had a terminal illness and will not be able to participate in trial.  The Defendant’s argued that in these circumstances a further exam should be ordered.  Mr. Justice Smith found that while that could be the case, here it was not necessary because the Defendant had already received a report from their second psychiatrist who opined about the Plaintiff’s condition despite not physically examining her.   In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:

[16] The question that arises on the new evidence, given the unavailability of Dr. Davis for trial, is whether the defendant needs a new psychiatric examination to be placed on that all important equal footing. For that purpose I turn to the report of Dr. Vallance that was before the master. This is of course a report that the defendant has, can rely upon at trial, and presumably Dr. Vallance will be available to be cross-examined on it.

[17] Dr. Vallance prefaces his report by stating:

I have not personally examined Ms. De Sousa. Consequently such opinions as I offer in this report are offered only on the understanding that such opinions are significantly limited in the weight that can be given to them absent such an examination.

As a general statement, that is undoubtedly true. However, it must be reviewed in the context of this case and the issues that will be before the court on which medical opinion evidence will be necessary.

[18] Dr. Vallance states that, based on his review of the records, there is no doubt about the fact that the plaintiff now suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. So he does not suggest that he needs to conduct an independent medical examination to confirm or exclude that diagnosis.

[19] The real issue in this case is whether that condition was caused or contributed to by the accident. On that point Dr. Vallance gives a firm opinion. He states:

I believe that if her physical condition and such anxiety as she had arising from the traumata that she experienced had been significant stressors timing the onset of that first episode, then her psychotic illness would have developed sooner rather than later. I believe that her psychosis began out of the blue, as it usually does, and at an age that is usual for the appearance of a first episode.

He then says:

Such diagnoses as paranoid schizophrenia often reveal themselves slowly over time, and therefore, based on the longitudinal history rather than cross-sectional examination, earlier episodes are often diagnosed as other conditions until the full picture is revealed.

[20] Thus on the crucial causation issue, Dr. Vallance’s own report does not support the suggestion that an independent medical examination is needed to place the parties on an equal footing. Indeed he specifically questions the usefulness of a single medical examination and stresses the need to review the entire history, as he has already done, based on the records.

[21] There is also evidence before me from the plaintiff’s family physician that in light of the plaintiff’s present psychiatric condition, a further medical examination at this time will actually be harmful to her health. That prejudice to the plaintiff must, in my view, be considered, although if I thought that a further psychiatric examination was necessary to put the parties on an equal footing, I would have said that means would need to be devised to manage that risk, perhaps with the assistance of the treating psychiatrist.

[22] However, that is not the case here. It appears to me from the evidence of Dr. Vallance that the defendants are in as good a position as they are likely to be to advance their position that this severe psychiatric condition is causally unrelated to the motor vehicle accident. I am not satisfied that a further psychiatric examination will add anything to the matter or will be of any further assistance for the court.

Third Party's Can Be Exposed To "Loser Pays" Costs Consequences

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 14, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on Third Party's Can Be Exposed To "Loser Pays" Costs Consequences

(Update February 9, 2012 – the below decision is under appeal with the BCCA granting leave to appeal on February 9, 2012)
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, confirming that Third Party’s are not immune from BC’s ‘loser pays’ system.
This week’s case (Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang) involved a highly publicized lawsuit where the Plaintiff lawyer was awarded damages after being injured in a dance floor incident.  My previous posts can be accessed here for the full background.  This week the Court finalized some of the costs consequences following the trial.  In doing so Mr. Justice Kelleher provided the following comments adopting an Alberta judgement confirming that there is no reason why Third Party’s can’t be exposed to costs consequences following trial:

[15] The first issue is whether Lombard should be held liable to the plaintiff Ms. Danicek for the costs of the trial.

[16] There is no serious dispute that although Lombard was not a defendant but a third party, it may be liable in costs. It was put this way by Egbert J. in Sunburst Coaches Ltd v. Romanchuck;Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Limited (Third Party) (1953) 9 W.W.R. (N.S.) 385 (Alta. S.C.) at 392, para. 19:

The third party, on its own application became a party to and actively defended the action, and by so doing made itself subject to the jurisdiction of this court as to costs. I see no reason why the plaintiff should not have judgment against the third party as well as against the defendants, for its costs computed in the manner aforesaid.

[17] Because of the other settlements in this action Lombard found itself the only party left to defend the claim.  Although Mr. Poole had admitted liability, Lombard contested both the liability of Mr. Poole and damages.  It was entitled to do so but faces the possibility of an award of costs either in its favour or against it, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit…

[23] The purpose of an award of costs is to indemnify successful litigants; deter frivolous proceedings and defences; encourage parties to deliver reasonable offers to settle; and discourage improper or unnecessary steps in litigation:  see Skidmore v. Blackmore (1995), 122 D.L.R (4th) 330, at para. 37.

[24] My conclusion is that the plaintiff is entitled to her costs in respect to Phase 1 of the trial against Lombard.  It was Lombard that decided to contest liability and quantum.  Ms. Danicek’s position was upheld on each of these issues.  Quantum far exceeded the settlements she had reached with Mr. Poole, Alexander Holburn and the other third parties.

[25] Lombard was not, ultimately, liable for the judgment against Mr. Poole.  This was because of the conclusion reached in the second phase of the trial that the Lombard policy did not provide coverage.  But that was not the issue in Phase 1 of the trial.  (There was evidence relevant to the coverage issue adduced at trial.  That is because witnesses were called at the first phase who had evidence to give in respect to the second phase.)  The issues decided in Phase 1 were liability of Mr. Poole and quantum of damages.

[26] In my view having in mind the principle of an award of costs, costs should be awarded against Lombard in respect of Phase 1 from the time that it filed a statement of defence.  The plaintiff was substantially successful on the issues involving Lombard in that part of the trial.

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Hyperlinks On Their Own Are Not Defamatory

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 60 Comments on Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Hyperlinks On Their Own Are Not Defamatory


Although not a personal injury case, the Supreme Court of Canada released reasons for judgement today which I have been eagerly awaiting as a legal blogger.  In short the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content“.
In today’s case (Crookes v. Newton) the Defendant posted hyperlinks on a website he owned and operated to articles about the Plaintiff which were allegedly defamatory.  He did not author the allegedly defamatory articles.
The Plaintiff sued arguing the act of hyperlinking to defamatory content amounts to republishing the content and hence is also defamatory.   His case was dismissed at trial.  The BC Court of Appeal also dismissed the case finding that “there is no basis for finding a presumption of publication of the hyperlinked articles and that the mere fact (the Defendant) hyperlinked the impugned sites does not make him a publisher of the material found at the hyperlinked sites”.  You can click here for my 2009 article discussing the Court of Appeal’s judgement.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal.  In authoring the majority judgement Justice Abella provided the following reasons:

[] A hyperlink is a device routinely used in articles on the Internet whereby a word or phrase is identified, often with underlining, as being a portal to additional, related information.  Clicking on the hyperlink connects the reader to that information.

[] The legal issue in this appeal is whether hyperlinks that connect to allegedly defamatory material can be said to “publish” that material. ..

[] The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks.  Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression.  The potential “chill” in how the Internet functions could be devastating, since primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to another article over whose changeable content they have no control.  Given the core significance of the role of hyperlinking to the Internet, we risk impairing its whole functioning.  Strict application of the publication rule in these circumstances would be like trying to fit a square archaic peg into the hexagonal hole of modernity.

[] I do not for a moment wish to minimize the potentially harmful impacts of defamatory speech on the Internet.  Nor do I resile from asserting that individuals’ reputations are entitled to vigorous protection from defamatory comments.  It is clear that “the right to free expression does not confer a licence to ruin reputations” (Grant, at para. 58).  Because the Internet is a powerful medium for all kinds of expression, it is also a potentially powerful vehicle for expression that is defamatory.  In Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia , (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416 (C.A.), at para. 32, Blair J.A. recognized the Internet’s “tremendous power” to harm reputation, citing with approval the following excerpt from Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky “Silencing John Dow: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace” (2000), 49 Duke L.J. 855, at pp. 863-64: ..

[] But I am not persuaded that exposing mere hyperlinks to the traditional publication rule ultimately protects reputation.  A publication is defamatory if it both refers to the plaintiff, and conveys a defamatory meaning: Grant, at para. 28.  These inquiries depend, respectively, on whether the words used or “the circumstances attending the publication are such as[] would lead reasonable persons to understand that it was the plaintiff to whom the defendant referred” (Brown, at para. 6.1), and whether the words would “tend[] to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society” (Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., at para. 62).  Defamatory meaning in the words may be discerned from “all the circumstances of the case, including any reasonable implications the words may bear, the context in which the words are used, the audience to whom they were published and the manner in which they were presented” (Botiuk, at para. 62, citing Brown (2nd ed. 1994), at p.1-15).  (See Brown, at paras. 5.2, 5.4(1)(a) and 6.1; Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper, Ltd., [1944] A.C. 116 (H. L.); Butler v. Southam Inc., , 2001 NSCA 121, 197 N.S.R. (2d) 97; Bou Malhab v.Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., , 2011 SCC 9, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214, at paras. 63 and 112; Botiuk, at para. 62.)

[] Where a defendant uses a reference in a manner that in itself  conveys defamatory meaning about the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s ability to vindicate his or her reputation depends on having access to a remedy against that defendant.  In this way, individuals may attract liability for hyperlinking if the manner in which they have referred to content conveys defamatory meaning; not because they have created a reference, but because, understood in context, they have actuallyexpressed something defamatory (Collins, at paras.  7.06 to 7.08 and 8.20 to 8.21). This might be found to occur, for example, where a person places a reference in a text that repeats defamatory content from a secondary source (Carter, at para. 12).

[] Preventing plaintiffs from suing those who have merely referred their readers to other sources that may contain defamatory content and not expressed defamatory meaning about the plaintiffs will not leave them unable to vindicate their reputations.  As previously noted, when a hyperlinker creates a link, he or she gains no control over the content linked to.  If a plaintiff wishes to prevent further publications of the defamatory content, his or her most effective remedy lies with the person who actually created and controls the content.

[] Making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content.  Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be “published” by the hyperlinker.  Such an approach promotes expression and respects the realities of the Internet, while creating little or no limitations to a plaintiff’s ability to vindicate his or her reputation.  While a mere reference to another source should not fall under the wide breadth of the traditional publication rule, the rule itself and the limits of the one writer/any act/one reader paradigm may deserve further scrutiny in the future.

[] I am aware that distinctions can be drawn between hyperlinks, such as the deep and shallow hyperlinks at issue in this case, and links that automatically display other content. The reality of the Internet means that we are dealing with the inherent and inexorable fluidity of evolving technologies.  As a result, it strikes me as unwise in these reasons to attempt to anticipate, let alone comprehensively address, the legal implications of the varieties of links that are or may become available.  Embedded or automatic links, for example, may well prove to be of consequence in future cases, but these differences were not argued in this case or addressed in the courts below, and therefore need not be addressed here.

More on ICBC Claims and the Seatbelt Defence

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 110 Comments on More on ICBC Claims and the Seatbelt Defence

(Image via Wikimedia)
As I wrote in one of my first blog posts in 2008, failing to wear a seatbelt can reduce the level of compensation an otherwise faultless accident victim is entitled to in their personal injury claim.  However, this reduction does not flow automatically by failing to wear a seatbelt.  The Defendant still bears the burden of proving that it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to wear a seatbelt and further that injuries would have been lessened with proper seatbelt use.  Absent such evidence a Plaintiff’s compensation will not be reduced.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Gilbert v. Bottle) the Plaintiff was involved in a single vehicle collision in 2005.  She was a passenger in the Defendant’s vehicle.  She occupied the back seat between another passenger and a baby seat.  Both seatbelts available in the back were inaccessible given this position as one seatbelt was affixed to the baby seat and the other was located where the other passenger was seated.  The Plaintiff could have removed the affixed seatbelt herself (as the babyseat was unoccupied) but she did not do so.
The driver was “impaired by alcohol when he approached a corner too quickly and lost control of the vehicle“.  The Plaintiff was ejected.  She suffered severe injuries including a complicated traumatic brain injury.
ICBC presented evidence that the Plaintiff’s injuries would have been reduced with proper seatbelt use and argued that the Plaintiff’s damages ought to be reduced.  Madam Justice Dickson rejected this argument and did not accept ICBC’s expert’s opinion (the Court’s discussion of this can be found at paragraphs 44-48 of the judgement).  Madam Justice Dickson made the following findings and provide the following discussion canvassing this area of law:
[24] A plaintiff may be found to have failed to take reasonable care for his or her own safety by not wearing an available seatbelt or by accepting a ride in a vehicle not equipped with seatbelts.  If a seatbelt was available but not worn, the evidence must establish that it was operational and the plaintiff’s injuries would have been reduced by usage to justify a finding of contributory negligence.  Although there is no hard and fast rule as to apportionment in cases involving a successful seatbelt defence, the plaintiff is often held to be 10% to 25% contributorily negligent: Harrison v. Brown, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2889 (S.C.); Thon v. Podollan, 2001 BCSC 194; Ford v. Henderson, 2005 BCSC 609…

[52] Defence counsel also submits that Ms. Gilbert contributed negligently to her own injuries by agreeing to ride as a passenger in a position not equipped with an available seatbelt.  He says the circumstances are similar to those in Thon and, had Ms. Gilbert exercised reasonable care, she could have avoided her injuries entirely by not assuming the risk of riding in the middle backseat.  On this analysis, it is unnecessary to consider the extent to which proper seatbelt use would have avoided or reduced her injuries.  If, however, such an analysis is required he says, based on Mr. West’s evidence, those injuries caused by ejection from the vehicle could have been avoided.  He concedes that, on a Thon analysis, an apportionment in the 10% range would be appropriate.

[53] Despite his able submission, I cannot agree with defence counsel.  In my view this case is not analogous to Thon, which concerned plaintiffs who knowingly rode in an area of a vehicle not equipped with seatbelts (having done so in the same area earlier in the day).  In this case, the backseat of the Capri was equipped with two seatbelts but one was affixed to the baby seat and the other was located in the position occupied by Mr. Wycotte.  Ms. Gilbert was unaware of this situation until after she got in the car and, by that time, Mr. Bottle had pulled away.  Thereafter, her attempts to access the seatbelt used by the baby seat were unsuccessful, as were her attempts to persuade Mr. Bottle to stop the car and let her out.

[54] In a perfect world Ms. Gilbert would have noticed the baby seat and checked the availability of seatbelts in the backseat before she got into the Capri.  It was dark outside, however, and I do not consider her failure in this regard to amount to a want of reasonable care for her own safety.  In any event, even if she had done so, moved the baby seat and used the now available seatbelt there is no evidence that it was operating properly and I have not found her injuries would have been reduced by seat belt usage.

[55] If I am wrong and Ms. Gilbert failed to take reasonable care for her own safety either by failing to determine Mr. Bottle’s state of sobriety or assuming a position in the vehicle unequipped with an available seatbelt I would have found her comparative degree of fault was minimal.  Mr. Bottle drove in a criminally dangerous manner, while intoxicated, and thus departed dramatically from the relevant standard of care.  Ms. Gilbert, on the other hand, failed to elicit information that would have protected her from the terrible risk created by Mr. Bottle’s serious driving misconduct.  In these circumstances, at most I would have assessed her contributory negligence at 5%.