Skip to main content

Tag: bc injury law

Lawyer Shopping Not Enough to Create Conflict of Interest in Personal Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 53 Comments on Lawyer Shopping Not Enough to Create Conflict of Interest in Personal Injury Claim


Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing conflicts of interest when a lawyer sues a person who previously contacted their firm following a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Caballero v. O’Callaghan) the Defendant was the owner of a vehicle which was involved in a single vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle and was injured.  Shortly after the collision the Defendant owner contacted several lawfirms including the firm that eventually was retained by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff ultimately sued both the owner and driver of the vehicle he was in.  A few years into the lawsuit the Defendant owner brought an application to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawyer arguing he was acting in a conflict of interest.   Madam Justice Loo disagreed finding that while the Defendant did phone the Plaintiff’s lawfirm, he never spoke with the Plaintiff’s lawyer nor did he retain the firm.  In dismissing the application the Court provided the following reasons:



[36] The facts in this case fall within what is often referred to in these types of cases as a “shopping case”. Mr. Wells was looking or shopping for a lawyer and for legal advice. What he told Ms. D’Souza is most likely what he told the “numerous” lawyers he contacted on September 20, 2006.

[37] A reasonable person informed of all of the facts would not conclude there is a risk that Mr. Wells will be prejudiced by the information he provided to Ms. D’Souza or Slater Vecchio, or that anything unjust would arise.

[38] If I am wrong, there are other facts that I can take into account in deciding whether this application should succeed or whether Mr. Cantu should maintain his right to be represented by the counsel of his choice. Mr. Wells has known about this action since at least in or around October 20, 2008 when Quinlan Abrioux entered an appearance on his behalf. Yet he delayed almost two years before he first raised the issue of a conflict. Since December 2006 Slater Vecchio has done a significant amount of preparatory work for the trial which is set for ten days commencing February 6, 2012. Mr. Cantu selected Slater Vecchio as his counsel. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident, Mr. Cantu had to close his business, has been unable to find other employment, and is currently working with a vocation counsellor to consider his future employment options. He has either undergone or expects to undergo hip surgery with an expected long and painful recovery period. He is anxious to have the action resolved and move on with his life.

[39] However, apart from any delay argument, I conclude that the interests of justice do not require this Court to remove Slater Vecchio as lawyer for the plaintiff and the application is dismissed with costs.



The Deductibility of Part 7 Benefits in ICBC UMP Claims

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC UMP Cases.

I’ve previously discussed the deductibility of Part 7 Benefits in Tort Claims.  These benefits are also deductible in ICBC UMP (Underinsured Motorist Protection) Claims.  This was demonstrated in CD v. ICBC which I summarize below in my effort to create a searchable UMP judgement database.
In CD v. ICBC the Claimant was injured in a 2003 Collision in California.  The at fault motorist only had $25,000 in Third Party Liability coverage.  The Claimant was insured with ICBC applied to ICBC pursuant to UMP.  The value of the Claimant’s claim was decided via arbitration.  Arbitrator Yule quantified the claim at $27,500 less the $25,000 USD payment that was made by the at fault party’s insurer.  When converted to Canadian funds the payment exceeded the value of the claim leaving ICBC with no responsibility to pay under UMP.
Prior to reaching this conclusion the Arbitrator addressed the deductibility of Part 7 Benefits.  The Claimant claimed special damages of $1,445.  ICBC argued that all of this could have been claimed as a Part 7 Benefit and ICBC was under no obligation to cover these expenses under the provisions of UMP.  Arbitrator Yule agreed and in doing so provided the following reasons:
[ICBC] takes the position that nothing is recoverable for physiotherapy or massage therapy because these expenses are payable as no-fault benefits under Part 7 and, as such, are a “deductible amount” from UMP compensation.  There is no evidence that ICBC refused to pay these expenses under Part 7…I agree that the physiotherapy and massage therapy expenses are not recoverable in these circumstances as part of UMP compensation.  The vehicle repair deductible is not compensible because it is a claim relating to property damage, and UMP compensation is restricted to damages for injury or death.

$30,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for "Moderate" Soft Tissue Injuries

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

Adding to this site’s ICBC claims pain and suffering database, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a moderate soft tissue injury.
In today’s case (Olianka v. Spagnol) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  Fault was admitted.   The evidence was not particularly contested and the trial proceeded summarily.  The Court found the Plaintiff suffered moderate soft tissue injuries that were temporarily disabling with symptoms that were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $30,000 Mr. Justice Blair provided the following reasons:




[21] Mr. Olianka suffered what Dr. Neumann describes as a moderate soft tissue injury to the neck, a moderate soft tissue injury to the mid-back and a mild soft tissue injury to his lower back. I accept Mr. Olianka’s evidence with respect to his collision-related injuries and that these injuries precluded him from working for a four-month period. I also accept that Mr. Olianka continues to experience intermittent pain in his neck and upper back which is expected to last for some unknown period. Dr. Neumann opined that by January 14, 2011, Mr. Olianka had made a significant recovery from his injuries and concluded that his residual pain should gradually subside in intensity and frequency. He did not expect Mr. Olianka to suffer any permanent consequences from his collision-related injuries.

[22] Nevertheless, the optimism expressed by Dr. Neumann and reflected in Mr. Olianka’s increased activity level does not overshadow Mr. Olianka’s difficulties for the 27-month period between the collision and Dr. Neumann’s report dated January 14, 2011. In that period, Mr. Olianka, due to his injuries, was unable to work for four months and subsequently those injuries compromised his ability to fully perform his work as he had done prior to the collision. In addition, he was unable to enjoy the leisure activities in which he had participated prior to the collision. This 27-month recovery period must be considered when ascertaining the non-pecuniary damages award to which Mr. Olianka is entitled. I accept that he continues, to some lesser degree, to suffer intermittent pain from his collision-related injuries as described by both Mr. Olianka and Dr. Neumann…





[28] Based on the authorities and the unique evidence found in this case, I find that the appropriate award for Mr. Olianka’s non-pecuniary damages is $30,000, taking into account all contingencies, given the extent of the soft tissue injuries to his neck and back, the disability period of 27 months post-collision, as well as the lingering and ongoing aspect of his injuries, the limitations that the injuries imposed, not just on his ability to work, but also on his ability to partake in those physical activities which occupied his life prior to the collision and which he has only recently been able to resume albeit to a limited extent.

Waiting For Police Report Held Insufficient to Postpone Limitation Period in ICBC Claim

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


Section 6(4) of the BC Limitation Act states in part that a limitation period “does not begin to run against a plaintiff…..until the identity of the defendant…is known to the plaintiff“.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering this provision in the context of an ICBC Claim.
In this week’s case (Telus Corporation v. Araneda) equipment owned by Telus was struck by a motor vehicle causing $43,000 in damage.  They sued the party they alleged was responsible but did so nine days after the limitation period expired.
Telus argued that the running of the period should be postponed by several days under s. 6(4) of the Limitation Act because it took 18 days for them to receive the police report identifying the defendant.  Mr. Justice McEwan rejected this argument and dismissed the lawsuit.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:


[20] …. On the day of the accident, Telus, through its employee Dale Summers, knew it had a claim for property damage and knew the name of the tortfeasor was immediately ascertainable from a reliable source, the RCMP.

[21] In saying so, I reject Telus’ argument that a large enterprise should be judged on its “ individual circumstances” and that its step-wise approach to the management of its legal claims is akin to the situation in Strata Plan LMS 2940 v. Quick as a Wink Courier, 2010 BCCA 74. There the Court of Appeal upheld a judge of this Court who had found that an action brought by a strata corporation against an individual one day outside the limitation period was not statute-barred because the strata corporation was obliged to pass a resolution before it could initiate the action, and doing so took some time.

[22] Telus was not impeded by a statutory prerequisite, and there is no reason in principle why a large organization should be judged by a more accommodating standard than would apply to any competent individual. As in Meeker, Telus knew on the first day of the accident that it had suffered actionable harm and that the name of the person involved was ascertainable.

[23] It is regrettable that the limitation period went by in this case. As some of the case law demonstrates Courts frequently go some distance to ensure that cases are tried on their merits. The policy inherent in limitation periods, however, must also be respected. Applying the relevant legal principles to the present case, Telus has not established that it is entitled to postponement, and the action must be dismissed.


UMP Arbitration Caselaw Summary: Non-Pecuniary Damages for Tibial Plateau Fracture

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Knee Injury Cases, ICBC UMP Cases, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on UMP Arbitration Caselaw Summary: Non-Pecuniary Damages for Tibial Plateau Fracture

As previously discussed, when catastrophic injuries are sustained through the fault of an under-insured motorist most British Columbians enjoy Underinsured Motorist Protection “UMP”.
Sections 148.1 – 148.4 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation deal with UMP Claims.  When disputes arise as to the availability or the amount of UMP coverage the matter needs to be resolved through private arbitration as opposed to a public lawsuit.   The law requires all UMP decisions from 2007 onward to be published on ICBC’s website.  These cases, unfortunately, are published in PDF Format and they are not search friendly.  To remedy this I’ve decided to include UMP case summaries on this blog.  With that in mind here is the first in a series of UMP cases summaries.
The first UMP judgement published was RAH v. ICBC.  In RAH the Claimant was injured in a 2002 motor vehicle collision.   Fault was admitted.  It was agreed that the value of the claim would exceed the Defendant’s insurance limits and the parties agreed to have the value of the claim adjudicated by way of UMP Arbitration.

The Claimant suffered a comminuted fracture of the left medial and tibial plateaus.  These required surgical correction.   Unfortunately, even with surgical correction, the injury was so severe that the Claimant was left with “a marked disruption of the articular surface which accounted for on-going pain and inability to regain full movement of the left knee“.   The prognosis was for gradual worsening with a likelihood of a total knee replacement.   It was accepted that this injury would seriously impede the Claimant’s ability to earn a living and total damages of $681,000 were awarded.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $95,000 the arbitrator (Donald Yule) provided the following reasons:
The Claimant sustained severely comminuted medial and lateral tibial plateau fractures of the left knee.  He has undergone two surgeries, one to reduce the fractures with two plates and 10 screws and a second procedure to remove the hardware.  He faces the prospect of further surgery for a total knee joint replacement with a possible further revision 15 years later.  He has permanent on-going pain which will inevitably worsen over time until the first knee joint replacement surgery is done.  He has permanent loss of flexion of the left knee and knee joint replacement surgery will likely increase the loss of flexion.   He cannot return to his former occupation as industrial nurse/medic.  He cannot walk or sit for prolonged periods of time without causing an increase in left knee pain.   He takes non-morphine analgesics on a daily basis and occasionally Percocet for break-through pain.   He continues to use a cane.  Prolonged standing, walking on uneven surfaces, and going up and down stairs all aggravate his symptoms and will hasten the time when knee joint replacement surgery is required.  The claimant was physically active outdoors, apart from his work, before the Accident, both in the Scouting and Fourth Ranger groups and for recreational hiking, hunting, fishing and camping.  These activities except in a most limited and superficial manner, are now foreclosed to him…
…I assess the non-pecuniary damages at $95,000.
I should point out that this case was decided in 2008 and adjusting for inflation the assessment would be approximately $100,000.

Plaintiff At Fault in Fatal Tractor Trailer Collision for Running Stop Sign

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases. 44 Comments on Plaintiff At Fault in Fatal Tractor Trailer Collision for Running Stop Sign

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with the issue of fault following a two vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Rackstraw v. Robertson) the Plaintiff was involved in a collision with a tractor trailer.  The tractor trailer was travelling Northbound on Mount Lehman Road.  The Plaintiff was travelling eastbound on Sunset Crescent which forms a T-intersection with Mount Lehman Road.

The Defendant “decided to pass a northbound vehicle ahead of him”.   To do so he accelerated above the speed limit and had to travel in the southbound lane.  As he did so he saw the Plaintiff approach the intersection and run the stop sign which was facing him on Sunset Crescent.  The vehicles collided and the Plaintiff died shortly after.
Ultimately the Plaintiff was found fully at fault for the collision.  In reaching this conclusion Madam Justice Fisher provided the following reasons:
[25] Mr. Rackstraw owed a duty of care to other drivers travelling on Mount Lehman Road, in particular Mr. Robertson.  He breached that duty by failing to stop at the stop sign, failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to yield to the Robertson vehicle when he entered the roadway on Mount Lehman Road.  Mr. Rackstraw was the servient driver at all times…
[32] …. the fact that Robertson was travelling over the speed limit will only constitute negligence if his speed is what prevented him from taking reasonable evasive action: see Cooper v. Garrett, 2009 BCSC 35 at para. 42.  In my view, there is no evidence which establishes that Robertson’s speed prevented him from doing so. His truck was just about at the intersection when he first saw Rackstraw’s vehicle, and only his trailer, or part of it, was still in the southbound lane when the impact occurred…
[37] …it is my opinion that the accident in the case at bar was caused solely by the failure of Mr. Rackstraw to stop at the stop sign, to keep a proper lookout and to yield to the Robertson vehicle when he entered the roadway on Mount Lehman Road.  When Robertson started his pass, there was no reason for him to believe that he could not do so safely or that he would interfere with the travel of another vehicle.  As in Ferguson, he was engaged in a lawful manoeuvre.  He did not see, and could not reasonably have seen, the Rackstraw vehicle until he was just about at the intersection and he had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision.

More on Part 7 Medical Exams Barring Tort Exams

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

As previously discussed, ICBC can typically arrange an ‘independent’ medical exam (IME) in one of two ways.  The first is when an insured applies for first party no-fault benefits.  Section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation gives ICBC the power to compel an IME in these circumstances.  The second is under Rule 7-6(1) of the BC Supreme Court rules which allows the court to order an independent exam to “level the playing field” in an injury lawsuit.
Two sets of reasons for judgement were recently brought to my attention from the BC Supreme Court, Campbell River Registry, discussing when a previous Part 7 Exam will prevent ICBC from obtaining a new expert under the Rules of Court.
In the first case (Robinson v. Zerr) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  In the course of dealing with ICBC for his Part 7 Benefits the Plaintiff attended a medical appointment arranged by ICBC with an orthopaedic surgeon.  In the course of the tort lawsuit ICBC attempted to get an opinion from a second orthopaedic surgeon.  The Plaintiff opposed this.  ICBC brought an application to compel the second exam but this was dismissed with the Court finding that the first report strayed beyond what was required for a Part 7 exam.  In dismissing the Application Master McCallum provided the following reasons:
[8]  The authorities are clear that the Part 7 report can be treated, as it was in Robertson v. Grist, as a report in the tort action if it is shown that it effectively covered all of that ground, as I understand it.  It is clear from Dr. Dommisse’s that it does cover all of what one may expect in a report.   Dr. Dommisse did not have access to the pre-accident clinical records.  However, it is clear he knew of the plaintiff’s history because he describes past treatments and past history…
[10]  Dr. Dommisse went through the examination and gave his opinion.  His opinion is not qualified in any way.  He does not suggest that there is more information he needs.  He makes no recommendaiton for treatment.  There is nothing to suggest that, if he had more information or that he wished more information before he could make the determinations he did.
[11]  The report, in my view, is the same of sufficiently similar to the report in Robertson v. Grist and obtained in circumstances that persuade me that this report is indeed the opportunity for the level playing field that the authorities call for.  The defendant has had the opportunity to have the plaintiff examined by an examiner of his choosing.  Although the adjuster references Part 7 claim and the disability benefits, Dr. Dommisse does not, in my view, treat the report as limited in any way and gives his opinion on every aspect of the claim…
[15]  In those circumstances the defendant’s application is dismissed.
In the second case (Lamontage v. Adams) a similar result was reached with a Court finding that a subsequent exam should be with the Part 7 physician as that examiner covered ground relevant in the tort claim.
The above cases are unreported but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy of the reasons to anyone who contacts me and requests these.

$140,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for T-12 Burst Fracture

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 63 Comments on $140,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for T-12 Burst Fracture

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages following a 2005 motor vehicle collision.
In this week’s case (X v. Y) the Plaintiff was an RCMP officer.  (Supplemental reasons were released permitting the Plaintiff to identify himself by initials and to seal the Court file given the Plaintiff’s undercover work).  He was responding to an emergency call.  He was travelling on his motorcycle when he was struck by a truck driven by the Defendant who was in the course of making a U-turn.  Although fault was put at issue the Court found the defendant fully liable for the collision.

The Plaintiff suffered a burst fracture at the T-12 level which required surgical intervention.  He suffered from chronic pain following this and although he was able to return to police work he could only do so in a more administrative (as opposed to front-line) capacity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $140,000 Madam Justice Dardi provided the following reasons:
[101] The plaintiff underwent surgery on July 21, 2005, after which Dr. D. explained to the plaintiff that he had a burst fracture in his vertebrae in the thoracolumbar region, and that metal rods, clamps and screws had been placed in the area to fuse the spine together. The plaintiff was fitted with a clamshell brace in order to stabilize his fused spine and prevent him from moving. He was not allowed to sit or stand up unless he was wearing this brace. He used a walker to manoeuvre around the hospital. After physiotherapy treatments, he was able to walk short distances, go to the bathroom, and get in and out of his hospital bed. He was released from the hospital on July 27, 2005…
[147] It is uncontroversial that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury in the accident: a fractured spine which required surgical fusion with metal instrumentation. The medical evidence clearly establishes that he is permanently disabled insofar as repetitive heavy bending, lifting and high-impact activities. He has an increased risk for the development or acceleration of degenerative disc disease and is at an increased susceptibility for reinjuring his back…




[163] In summary on this issue, I find that the plaintiff’s symptoms are genuine. He regularly experiences varying degrees of pain and significant stiffness, tightness, and spasms in his back. The cold exacerbates his symptoms. He will continue to experience episodic aggravation of his symptoms. He is at an increased risk of developing degenerative arthritis and he has an increased susceptibility for further injury to his back. He also faces the possibility of another surgery to remove the hardware in his back. He has reduced stamina and tires much more easily than prior to the collision. I also conclude that as the plaintiff ages, there is a substantial likelihood that his pain and discomfort will increase because he will not be able to maintain the same level of conditioning in the muscles supporting the fused area of his back.

[164] In terms of his career, the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports a finding that the plaintiff is not fit to perform the full range of policing duties. He must avoid impact activities and any risk of physical altercations with suspects, which restricts him from participation in front-line policing duties. He can no longer perform the duties of a motorcycle officer, nor is he able to pursue his ambition to join the ERT as an operational member…




[179] While the authorities are instructive, I do not propose to review them in detail, as each case turns on its own unique facts. Having reviewed all of the authorities provided by both counsel, and in considering the plaintiff’s particular circumstances, I conclude a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary damages is $140,000.

More on Court Ordered Medical Exams and Travel

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on More on Court Ordered Medical Exams and Travel


Further to my previous posts on this topic (which you can find here and here) further reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing defence medical exams and the issue of travel.
In today’s case (Breberin v. Santos) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The Defendants wished to send her for a medical exam.  The Plaintiff lived in Edmonton and argued that the exam should take place there.  The Defendants applied for a Court order to compel an exam in Vancouver.  In opposing the application the Plaintiff produced evidence from her doctor stating that “she is unable to travel….at the present time or in the forseeable future“.
Mr. Justice Willcock was not satisfied with this medical evidence and ordered that the exam take place with the Defendant’s chosen expert in Vancouver.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:




[5] The argument made by the parties is, first, for the defendants, that the defendants are entitled pursuant to Rule 7-6 to obtain an order requiring the plaintiff to attend at a medical examination and that the test to be addressed by the court in determining where and when the examination should take place is fully and accurately described by Master Bouck in the decision of Parsons v. Mears, 2011 BCSC 397.  In that case, the court says that the following principles are applicable to the question whether a plaintiff should be examined within British Columbia:

a.         The purpose of an independent medical examination is to put the parties on a basis of equality. It is not for the plaintiff to decide which doctor can examine him or her on behalf of the defendant …

b.         Nonetheless, an independent medical examination is an examination conducted by a person appointed by the court. The convenience of the plaintiff is to be considered in appointing such a person …

c.         Convenience to the plaintiff is but one of several factors for the court to consider in exercising its discretion under Rule 7-6: …

d.         It may be appropriate for the court to consider appointing a specialist other than the proposed examiner but only where the plaintiff demonstrates, on a preponderance of evidence, sufficient grounds to justify the court in concluding that its discretion should not be exercised in favour of the appointment of the defendant’s nominee …

[12] In my view, the logic of Master Bouck set out in the Parsons case is applicable both in relation to independent medical examinations within and outside British Columbia.  I am of the view that the plaintiff’s convenience should be considered in determining where the independent medical examination should take place.  I am also of the view, however, that the onus should fall upon the plaintiff to show that there is a reason to depart from the general rule that the defendants are entitled to choose the expert who should conduct the independent medical examination on their behalf.  Here, the plaintiff should be required to show some justification for requiring that the independent medical examination should take place in Edmonton.

[13] As I noted when I referred to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in response to the application, there is very little evidence with respect to the nature of the medical problem that will prevent the plaintiff from attending at an independent medical examination.  The independent medical examination is scheduled in the relatively distant future, on July 8, 2011.  There is, in my view, sufficient time for the plaintiff to prepare and make careful arrangements to attend at that examination in July.  This is not a case where the independent examination is set late in the day or in circumstances that prevent the plaintiff from making appropriate arrangements so as to make it convenient for her to attend.

[14] I am not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff has established that there is any reason that justifies an order that she should be examined in Edmonton as opposed to Vancouver.  There is, on the other hand, considerable advantage to the parties in having the independent medical examination being conducted in Vancouver in that the expert will be available to attend at trial if required to do so and readily available for cross-examination.  Because the case is set for trial in Vancouver, I am of the view that it is in the interests of justice in this case to order that the independent medical examination take place here.  I am not satisfied on the evidence there is any reason to depart from the Rule that the defendant should be entitled to choose an appropriate expert to conduct the examination so as to put the parties on an equal footing.




Interest on Disbursements: The Uncertainty Continues

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

The BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgement today in a case addressing the recoverability of interest on disbursements in personal injury lawsuits.  It was anticipated that the Court would set out a firm answer to this issue.  Unfortunately the question remains unanswered as the BC Court of Appeal held that “this is not the right case to address the issue“.
In today’s case (Milne v. Clarke) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  The case settled but following this the parties could not agree whether the interest charges on disbursements for private MRI’s were recoverable.  Ultimately Mr. Justice Burnyeat held that this was a recoverable disbursement finding as follows:
[9] The law in British Columbia is that interest charged by a provider of services where the disbursement has been paid by counsel for a party is recoverable as is the disbursement.  The interest charge flows from the necessity of the litigation.  If the disbursement itself can be assessed as an appropriate disbursement, so also can the interest owing as a result of the failure or inability of a party to pay for the service provided.  In order to obtain the M.R.I., it was necessary to pay not only the $975.00 cost but also the interest on any unpaid balances that were not paid immediately.  The cost plus interest was the cost of obtaining the M.R.I.  The claim for interest should have been allowed.
ICBC appealed this as a test case hoping to get a firm answer from the BC Court of Appeal.  The Appeal was dismissed with the Court finding that there was insufficient material before them to address the issue.  The Court provided the following reasons:





[13] There is, as Mr. Justice Frankel observed, divergent authority on the recoverability of interest on disbursements under Rule 57(4) (now Rule 14-1(15)).  There may be different answers to that question depending upon the circumstances of the charge, the time and purpose for which the charge was incurred, and the circumstances that caused counsel to pay the bill, but this must be a question for another case.  It is clear from the fresh evidence that in this case the recoverability of the interest paid by counsel requires an interpretation of the settlement agreement.  One question is whether the amount in issue is properly characterized as a claim for special damages rather than disbursement, and is thus captured within the agreed sum.  Another question is whether, on a correct interpretation of the settlement agreement, the amount in issue is recoverable as “a necessary and reasonable disbursement”.  The judge, having been presented with the case as an application of Rule 57(4), did not deal with either of these issues.

[14] To look at it another way, it was intended that this appeal would be concerned with the recoverability of interest as a disbursement under Rule 57(4).  On the material before us, the case turns on the characterization of the charge as a disbursement or special damages, and the interpretation of several terms of the settlement agreement, on only one of which the law on Rule 57(4) might be a reference point, and even there is not directly engaged.

[15] In our view this is not the right case to address the issue raised in the leave application.  While that issue is of interest to the profession, its answer must await a case that directly engages the rule, in the context of a proper factual matrix rather than a hypothetical.