Skip to main content

Tag: bc injury law

Pharmacare Benefits Non-Deductible From Cost of Future Care Award

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


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




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

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

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

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

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

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




More From the BC Court of Appeal on Causation in Personal Injury Lawsuits

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

The BC Court of Appeal released reasons for judgment this week providing a short and useful summary of the law of causation in personal injury lawsuits.
In this week’s case (Farrant v. Laktin) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 collision.  He had pre-existing problems due to spinal degeneration which continued to bother him at the time of the collision.  Following the collision the Plaintiff’s symptoms worsened.  At trial the Court rejected the argument that the Plaintiff’s on-going symptoms were related to the crash.  The BC Court of Appeal ordered a new trial finding that the Trial Judge did not apply the proper legal test for causation.  In doing so the Court provided the following helpful summary of the law:






[8] To justify compensation for his disabling pain, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and that pain.

[9] The general test for causation, established in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at paras. 13-17, is the “but for” test: “but for” the accident, would the plaintiff have suffered the disabling pain? In Athey, the Court also stated that a plaintiff need not establish that the defendant’s negligence was the sole cause of the injury. If there are other potential non-tortious causes, such as the plaintiff’s spinal degeneration in this case, the defendant will still be found liable if the plaintiff can prove the accident caused or materially contributed to the disabling pain, beyond the de minimus range.

[10] In Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, 1 S.C.R. 333, the Supreme Court affirmed the “but for” test remains the basic test for determining causation, but developed the concept of “material contribution” in a different manner than that used in Athey, formulating a “material contribution” test as an exception to the “but for” test, a matter that is not relevant to this appeal. The Court replaced the Athey definition of “material contribution” to the plaintiff’s injury with the concept of “a substantial connection” between the injury and the defendant’s conduct. These developments were usefully summarized by Mr. Justice Smith, writing for the majority, in Sam v. Wilson, 2007 BCCA 622 at para. 109:

“Material contribution”, as that phrase was used in Athey v. Leonati, is synonymous with “substantial connection”, as that phrase was used by McLachlin C.J.C. above in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke.  This causal yardstick should not be confused with the “material contribution test”.  As McLachlin C.J.C. explained in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, at paras. 24 – 29, the “material contribution test” applies as an exception to the “but for” test of causation when it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injury using the “but for” test, where it is clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed the plaintiff thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and where the plaintiff’s injury falls within the ambit of the risk. …

[11] Thus, in applying the “but for” test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant’s conduct was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the de minimus level.







QEEG Evidence Not Admissible In BC Brain Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Brain Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 60 Comments on QEEG Evidence Not Admissible In BC Brain Injury Claim

(Image courtesy of Wikipedia)
Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, addressing the admissibility of QEEG Evidence in a brain injury claim.  In short the Court held that while such evidence may be admissible in appropriate cases, the evidence presented in the case was insufficient to meet the threshold test of reliability to admit “novel” evidence.
In this week’s case (Bialkowski v. Banfield) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  He allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury.  In support of his claim he tired to introduce QEEG evidence  tendered through a neuropsychologist.  Mr. Justice Bracken declined to let the evidence in finding that the neuropsychologist was not properly qualified to introduce the QEEG evidence and further the evidence was not proven to be reliable.  In excluding the evidence Mr. Justice Bracken provided the following summary of his findings:



[3] Electroencephalography (“EEG”) is a means of recording the electrical activity of the brain.  Typically, electrical signals are received through 19 electrodes placed on certain areas of the scalp by attaching the electrodes to a cap that fits snugly over the patient’s head.  The electrical activity is then recorded either on paper, or digitally on a computer.  The clinician can then visually examine the recorded data to analyze the patterns of activity.

[4] QEEG is a relatively new neuroimaging technique.  It uses computer assisted analysis of EEG tests.  The raw EEG data is digitized and analyzed by means of a mathematical algorithm.  It is said that the computer analysis is capable of extracting more information from the raw EEG data and enables the clinician to observe more subtle anomalies than can be seen with the eye on standard visual analysis.  Using another program the digitized data is then compared to a normative database to determine if the data are consistent with what is normal for a comparable group of individuals…

[58] While there may be cases where QEEG evidence will be accepted as part of expert opinion in Canadian Courts it should only be through a neurologist who is trained and qualified in EEG testing and analysis.  In my view, only a trained electroencephalographer who has the skill, knowledge and training to recognize the potential for error is qualified to give opinion evidence of QEEG analysis.

[59] On the evidence presented in this case, I find the QEEG evidence to be novel science and not sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence on the principles established in J.L.J. andMohan.  I conclude it will not assist the trier of fact.  As science progresses this may change and the evidence may meet the test of reliability so as to be admissible at some point in the future.  As was noted in Seifert, the fact that expert evidence conflicts does not, by itself, make it inadmissible.  Coburn, et al, recognize this in the conclusion of their report at p. 23, where it is stated:

Used cautiously and with appropriate recognition of its limitations, QEEG offers the clinician an accurate laboratory test to aid in the detection and differential diagnosis of several common neuropsychiatric disorders.  …  Additional uses of QEEG showing promise but not yet sufficiently developed for routine clinical application include the prediction of medication efficacy and the prediction of the clinical cause of a disorder.

There is nothing in that conclusion to suggest it will become clinically useful in diagnosing traumatic brain injury in the near future; however, it remains open for such evidence to be offered through an appropriate expert if and when it satisfies the evidentiary requirements of Canadian Courts.

[60] The evidence of QEEG analysis given by Dr. Malcolm is rejected as not being offered by a qualified expert.  QEEG does not meet the requisite reliability threshold and is still novel science.



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.