Skip to main content

Tag: bc injury law

Over 36,000 Reasons for Learning Motorists to Drive With A Qualified Accompanying Passenger

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating some of the real world consequences drivers with a learner’s licence could face if they are found to be in breach of their policy of insurance.
In today’s case (King v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 BC motor vehicle collision.  4 vehicles were involved in the crash.  The Plaintiff was insured with ICBC and they paid out over $36,000 with respect to the claims made from the crash.  At the time of the collision the Plaintiff had a Class 5L learners licence and was operating his vehicle “without a qualified accompanying passenger“.   As a result he was found in breach of his insurance.   He was found to be the at fault motorist and ICBC asked that he pay them back the over $36,000.
The Plaintiff sued ICBC arguing that he was not at fault and that he was not in breach of his insurance.  ICBC counterclaimed for $36,613.33.  Prior to trial ICBC made an offer to settle their claim against the Plaintiff for $33,000.  The Plaintiff declined this offer and proceeded to trial.  Ultimately Mr. Justice Pearlman found the plaintiff was the at fault motorist and that he was in breach of his policy of insurance.  He ordered that he pay back ICBC the funds they paid out with respect to the collision claims.
The Court went further and ordered that the Plaintiff pay ICBC double costs for failing to accept their pre trial offer.  In reaching this judgement Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following reasons:

[30]         The plaintiff’s claim failed as a result of the court finding that neither his testimony, nor that of his witness, Ms. Gromova, was credible.  The court found that the plaintiff had wilfully made a false statement respecting Ms. Gromova’s presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

[31]          The over-riding principle is whether, if the Offer to Settle had been accepted, there would have been significant, or any savings in litigation costs to the parties or to the court: LeFler v. Anderson, 2008 BCSC 1563, at para. 18. Here, acceptance of the offer would have spared both parties the significant costs of a four day trial where the amount in dispute was, exclusive of court order interest, less than forty thousand dollars.

[32]         Taking all these factors into consideration, I conclude that an award of double costs should be made in this case, and is consistent with the objective of deterring unreasonable conduct in litigation.  I find that the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable time to consider the defendant’s Offer to Settle, following its delivery on September 24, 2010.  Taking into account the disclosure of the will say statements of the defendant’s witnesses on September 29, and allowing Mr. King a reasonable time to consider his position, and the defendant’s Offer following the delivery of the will say statements, I find that the defendant is entitled to an award of double costs  commencing October 7, 2010.

RESULT

[33]         The defendant will recover its costs and disbursements of this action from its commencement until October 7, 2010.  Those costs will be at Scale B.

[34]         The defendant is entitled double costs commencing October 7, 2010 and to disbursements incurred after October 7, 2010.  Disbursements will be allowed in the amount incurred, rather than at a double rate.

Driver Liable to Passenger Ejected from Box of Truck

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

(Update November 2, 2011 – Note the below case was modified by the BC Court of Appeal with a finding that the motorist should be 100% at fault due to the absence of any evidence of contributory negligence)
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, discussing the issue of fault when a passenger riding in the box of a truck is ejected and injured.
In today’s case (Vedan v. Stevens) the Defendant driver allowed 4 children sit in the box of his pick-up truck.  The 12 year old Plaintiff was one of these children.  In the course of the trip the defendant “first became aware of a problem when he heard pounding on the cab of his truck…he stopped the truck and determined that one of the children, the plaintiff, was no longer in the truck box. He looked back and could see the plaintiff lying in the middle of the road“.
Madam Justice Beames determined that the Plaintiff rose from a seated position in the course of the trip and then was ejected.  The court held that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were at fault with the Defendant shouldering most of the blame.  Madam Justice Beames provided the following reasons:
[31] There is no question that the defendant was responsible for allowing the plaintiff and the other children to ride in the box of his truck. He did not have to allow the plaintiff to get into the box of the truck, and he had enough seats and seat belts, I find, inside the truck to accommodate all of his passengers, including the plaintiff…

[34] I find the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that he breached that duty and failed to exercise a standard of care of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. That negligence was clearly causally connected to what happened to the plaintiff. The plaintiff would not have been injured had the defendant not allowed him to ride unrestrained in the box of his truck. It was foreseeable, in my view, that what occurred would or could occur.

[35] I turn now to the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff…

[44] In the circumstances of this case, I would not find that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent simply by riding in the back, or the box, of the truck. He was allowed to be there by an elder from the Sun Dance ceremony which featured community, trust and respect for elders. However, I do find that the plaintiff was, by getting up from a seated position on the floor of the box in a moving truck, negligent in fact.

[45] Consequently, the defendant has proved contributory negligence…

[53] In all of the circumstances of this case, I apportion fault between them as follows: the plaintiff, 25 percent; the defendant, 75 percent.

Late Examinations for Discovery and the New BC Supreme Court Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing the right to conduct an examination for discovery in the two weeks proceeding trial under the New Civil Rules.
In today’s case (Lewis v. Lewis) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  ICBC was a statutory third party in the lawsuit and failed to exercise their right to examine the Plaintiff for discovery in a timely fashion.  ICBC served the Plaintiff with an appointment to attend a discovery 10 days before trial.  The Plaintiff objected arguing, amongst other things, that discoveries are not permitted within the two weeks prior to trial.  ICBC applied for an order compelling the Plaintiff to attend.
In support of their application ICBC argued that the prohibition preventing discoveries in the two weeks preceding trial no longer exists in the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules.   Mr. Justice Harvey, while not directly addressing this issue, dismissed ICBC’s motion and in doing so made it clear that the rules of Court operate so as to make it difficult for a party to be permitted to conduct a late discovery.  Mr. Justice Harvey provided the following reasons:
[7]  In response to (ICBC’s argument) Mr. Parsons, on behalf of the plaintiff, says that a clear reading of Rule 12-4(3) makes clear that the new rules still contemplate a prohibition against any step, including an examination for discovery, within the period prescribed in Rule 12-4(2).
[8] Rule 12-4(2) reads
A trial certificate must be filed at least 14 days before but not more than 28 days before the scheduled trial date.
[9] I am not persuaded in these circumstances I need to decide that very interesting issue, because I have also been referred to Rule 12-4(6) which says that:
A party who fails to file a trial certificate under subrule (1) is not, without leave of the court, entitled to make further applications.
[10]  The third party has not filed a trial certificate nor could they have given the requirement to have conpleted examinations for discovery as part of the requirement of “readiness”.  Now, 10 days before trial, it is too late to do so.
[11]  Counsel for the third party see this as an excuse allowing them to, at this late date, seek the Court’s leave for the application to compel the plaintiff’s attendance at the proposed discovery.
[12]  That, with respect, is disingenuous.  It has been open to the third party to conduct its discovery since the time it became a party.  That was in October of 2008.
[13]  Instead, the third party has chosen to rely on the defendant to take the lead in this litigation…
[14]  The third party has, at the last moment, unilaterally set down an examination for discovery over the objections of counsel for the plaintiff as to timing.  Counsel is busy with trial preparation for a 15 day jury trial.
[15]  The third party failed to provide conduct money and failed to file a trial certificate in accordance with the rules…
[16]  Contrary to the Rules, leave was not sought to bring the application when short leave was sought before the Master who heard the application.  The application for short leave was brought without notice and counsel for the plaintiff was unable to draw to the Court’s attention the failure of the third party to (1) require leave for their application and (2) failure to provide conduct money to the plaintiff.
[17]  In those circumstances, I am not prepared to gran the third party the leave required to bring this motion.

Back To Basics: Proving Fault in a BC Personal Injury Claim

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


When suing for damages as a result of a personal injury claim (specifically a Negligence claim) there are 3 basic matters that must be proven.  These were discussed in reasons for judgement released earlier this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry.
In this week’s case (Brooks-Martin v. Martin) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 motorcycle crash in Saanich, BC.  She lost control of her bike.  She claimed that another motorcyclist, who was travelling in front of her, swerved in front of her causing her crash.  She sued the other motorist and also a  company she alleged was responsible for failing to clean up gravel spilled onto the road which allegedly contributed to the crash.
At the close of the Plaintiff’s claim the Defendant brought a ‘no-evidence’ motion and asked the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.  Mr. Justice Halfyard refused to do so and provided the following succinct reasons summarizing the law of no-evidence motions and the basic requirements of a successful lawsuit for negligence in British Columbia:
[5] The legal test that must be met by a defendant who makes a motion for non-suit has been stated many different ways by many different courts. Based on the authorities, I would state the rule in this way:  In order to succeed on a motion for non-suit, a defendant must persuade the court that there is no evidence which is capable of proving one of the essential elements of the cause of action alleged against the defendant. The court must not weigh evidence or attempt to make findings of fact or to assess credibility. If an inference which is essential to the plaintiff’s case would be “mere speculation,” the defendant’s “no evidence” motion should be granted. See Fenton v. Baldo 2001 BCCA 95 at paragraphs 25-26; Seiler v. Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 2003 BCCA 696 at paragraph 12; Craigdarloch Holdings Ltd. at paragraphs 14 and 30; and Tran v. Kim Le Holdings Ltd. 2010 BCCA 156 at paragraph 2….

[27]        A plaintiff who sues for damages for personal injury allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence, must prove:

a)    That the defendant owed him or her a duty of care;

b)    That the defendant did an act or failed to do an act, which act or omission fell below the standard of care required of the defendant; and

c)    That the defendant’s said act or omission caused an accident (which caused injury to the plaintiff).

(See Linden & Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law, 8th edition (2006), page 108)

[28]        In my opinion, there is some evidence which, if believed, could support findings of each and every essential element of the cause of action alleged against MacNutt. To my mind, none of the disputed inferences required to support the plaintiff’s case at this stage, would be “mere speculation.”

[29]        It was for these reasons that I dismissed MacNutt’s motion for non-suit.

Mechanical Back Pain and Diminished Capacity For Stay at Home Parents Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Wage Loss, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, discussing non-pecuniary damages for mechanical back pain and further discussing awards for ‘diminished earning capacity‘ for stay at home parents who intend to return to the workforce.
In this week’s case (Bergman v. Standen) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 motor vehicle collision.  Fault for the crash was admitted by the other motorist.  The Plaintiff was 27 years old at the time of the crash and did not have “an established record of employment because of the conscious choice she and her husband made to have and raise their children to school age with the benefit of a stay-at-home-mother”.
The Plaintiff sustained injuries in the crash which included soft tissue damage and mechanical back pain.  Some of these symptoms were expected to be permanent although there was room for improvement with further therapy.  Mr. Justice Barrow assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $75,000.  In arriving at this figure the Court provided the following reasons:
[63] To summarize, Ms. Bergman was a 27-year-old mother of two young children, who suffered a Grade II whiplash injury to her neck and upper back, which resolved after several months and left her with no recurrent symptoms. She also suffered contusions, bruises to her face and chest, and a sore wrist, which resolved without ongoing difficulties shortly after the accident. Finally, and most significantly, she suffered a mechanical injury to her lower back that, I am satisfied, caused her significant pain and discomfort in the four and a half years since the accident. I am not persuaded that the discomfort is as significant as Ms. Bergman describes it, but it is nevertheless significant. I am satisfied that her lower back will remain symptomatic indefinitely. If, however, she follows the advice of Dr. Travlos and others, and commits to a program of physical conditioning and determines to work through the limitations that her low back may present, rather than dwelling on them, the degree to which that injury will affect her life in the future will moderate. In light of this, I am satisfied that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $77,500. This amount includes $2,500 for past loss of housekeeping capacity for reasons I will explain below.
This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity (future wage loss) awards for Plaintiffs who are out of the workforce at the time of their injuries.   As previously discussed there is nothing preventing such plaintiffs from being awarded damages for future wage loss given the right circumstances.  In assessing the Plaintiff’s loss at $65,000 Mr. Justice Barrow provided the following useful reasons:
[80] Ms. Bergman does not have an established record of employment because of the conscious choice she and her husband made to have and raise their children to school age with the benefit of a stay-at-home mother. I accept that Ms. Bergman planned to and will return to work when her youngest child reached school age. I accept that the sort of work she is destined to do will likely involve an emphasis on physical as opposed to mental exertion. There is a mill in Lavington that Ms. Bergman thought about applying to. She impresses me as the sort of person who would find work of that nature rewarding and challenging. It is with a view to those real and substantial possibilities that the question of her indefinite, albeit moderating disability, needs to be assessed….
[84] I recognize that Dr. Coghlan, in his September 21, 2009 report, concluded that he would “not restrict her activity level in terms of jobs on the basis of today’s findings”. I am not sure that the opinions of the physiatrists are in conflict. Whether they are or not, I am satisfied that Ms. Bergman has established an impairment of her capital asset, being her ability to earn an income in the future. Valuing that loss is necessarily an imprecise exercise. Lacking any better measure, I consider that an award equivalent to between one and two years of Ms. Bergman’s likely future annual income to be reasonable. I fix her loss of future earning capacity at $65,000.

Independent Medical Exams and Forced "Waivers"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 4 Comments on Independent Medical Exams and Forced "Waivers"


When Plaintiffs attend defence medical exams some doctors require patients to fill out questionnaires and waivers of liability.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing this area of law and concluding that Plaintiffs cannot be forced to sign waivers through the Court ordered independent medical exam process.
In today’s case (Mund v. Braun) the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision and allegedly sustained some complex injuries.  In the lawsuit the Plaintiff agreed to attend a defence medical exam with a neurologist (Dr. Makin).  Dr. Makin requested that the Plaintiff sign a waiver form indicating that the Plaintiff “will not sue Dr. Makin outside of BC.”.  As previously discussed, BC law provides doctors with a strong immunity from lawsuits arising from carelessness in the independent medical examination process.  The reason for this waiver was to apparently protect the doctor against the remote chance that the Plaintiff could sue outside of BC.  The Plaintiff refused to sign the waiver.
The Defendant brought a motion and the BC Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Plaintiff could be forced to sign such a waiver.  Mr. Justice Brown dismissed this motion finding that unless the Court of Appeal rules otherwise the law is settled that BC Courts don’t have jurisdiction to force plaintiff’s to sign such waivers.  In addressing this point Mr.  Justice Brown held as follows:
[38] In any case, on the question of requiring the plaintiff to sign the Jurisdiction agreement, I am bound by Desjardins (Litigation guardian of) v. Huser, 2010 BCSC 977; Kobzos v. Dupuis, 2006 BCSC 2047; Stead v. Brown, 2010 BCSC 312; Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands, 2003 BCCA 180; Rafferty v. Power (1993), 15 C.P.C. (3d) 48 (BCSC); and Allan-Trensholme v. Simmie, [2006] B.C.J. No. 720 (BCCA). I do not have jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to sign the Jurisdiction Agreement. On the narrow point of whether jurisdiction remains with the court under the Civil Rules to require a party to sign an authorization for documents in the possession of a third party but over which the party has sufficient control, e.g. the party’s clinical records kept by their physician, that is governed by the cited cases until such time as the Court of Appeal specifically rules on that. For now, the general question appears settled; and as for the facts at bar, in my view, the consent in this case falls squarely within the ambit of the authorities cited.
This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of the extent of testing that can take place during a Court ordered exam.  Dr. Mund wished to conduct electro-diagnostic testing of the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff refused.  Mr. Justice Brown held that this test was permitted and in so finding stated as follows about doctors discretion during the testing process:
[16] I accept Dr. Makin’s explanation that electro-diagnostic studies are considered an extension of neurological examinations. I find the testing is minimally invasive, and would not invade the plaintiff’s privacy…

[19]         Given the variety of causes attributed to the plaintiff’s symptoms, which include thoracic outlet syndrome, myofascial factors, soft tissue pathology in the neck and right shoulder, cervical spine disc disease with a degenerative factor and even diabetes II, diagnosis is obviously a not straight forward exercise in this case.

[20]         I am satisfied nerve conductions studies are relevant to the issues raised and the pleadings and in the medical reports written for the plaintiff. The defendant submits there is at least a possibility the plaintiff’s tingling and numbness could result from degeneration in his cervical spine or unrelated nerve problems in his right arm; and the origin and causation of his neck, shoulder and arm symptoms are related to the pleadings.

[21]         I also agree that affording Dr. Makin leeway to conduct nerve conduction studies he sees as necessary is required in order to ensure reasonable equality between the parties. The studies will not necessarily duplicate earlier ones. An electro-diagnostic study is a reasonable extension of the clinical examination if the examining physician comes to judge it necessary to form, or confirm, their professional diagnostic opinion.

[22]         Therefore, the plaintiff will submit to electro-diagnostic testing by Dr. Makin if requested to do so.

Expert Witness Criticized by BC Supreme Court for "Advocacy"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, ICBC Fibromyalgia Cases, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.


Further to my previous posts on this topic, expert witnesses have a duty to be objective when giving their evidence and opinions in a BC Supreme Court trial.  Rule 11-2 specifically sets out that “In giving an opinion to the court, an expert appointed under this Part by one or more parties or by the court has a duty to assist the court and is not to be an advocate for any party.”
In addition to the above, the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons (the governing body for BC doctors) has provided the following feedback to its members:  “ Additionally, whether physicians are acting as experts in the capacity of treating physicians or independent medical experts, they still must provide balanced and objective reports.   The College does recommend that, when asked to provide an expert opinion, treating physicians discuss with their patients the physician’s duty to assist the court and not be an advocate for any party.”
If experts fail to give objective evidence their opinions can be excluded from trial and they open themselves to criticism from the trial judge.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court demonstrating this.
In today’s case (Warkentin v. Riggs) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  The Defendant admitted fault for the crash.  The Plaintiff sustained various injuries including an alleged post traumatic Fibromyalgia Syndrome.  In support of her case the Plaintiff filed several medical reports.  The Defendant objected to one of these being introduced on the basis that the expert ignored his duty to the Court and presented his evidence not as a neutral expert but rather as an ‘advocate‘.  Madam Justice Gropper agreed and excluded the expert’s evidence.  In doing so the Court provided the following harsh criticism:
[58] Dr. Hunt’s report adopts a particular format. He uses bold font to highlight words and phrases which benefit the plaintiff’s claim and support his diagnosis. This is apparent in his review of Ms. Warkentin’s history and medical reports. That which is contrary to the plaintiff’s claim or does not support his diagnosis is either omitted or presented in non-bolded font. This emphasis in support of the plaintiff’s claim and the exclusion of contrary matters is advocacy…

[81]        I find that Dr. Hunt is not a neutral and impartial expert providing assistance to the court, but rather an advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. The report is argument, not opinion. He did not provide a balanced discussion of fibromyalgia and its possible application to the plaintiff’s case. His discussion of the medical principles and their application to the plaintiff’s case is biased, argumentative and contrary to the requirements for the admissibility of an expert report.

[82]        Dr. Hunt’s own description of his role as an “Expert Medical Legal Consultant providing opinions on behalf of patients with chronic pain who are seeking legal remedies with respect to their condition” indicates that he does not consider his role as an expert to be that of an objective advisor to the court.

[83]        Dr. Hunt’s perceived role is amply demonstrated in his report. The format he uses is designed to emphasize matters which support the plaintiff’s claim and his diagnosis.

[84]        Dr. Hunt presents the medical literature in a manner that suggests that there is consensus about the causal connection between motor vehicle accidents and the onset of fibromyalgia. He attempted to mislead the court regarding the medical literature upon which he relies by referring only to portions which support his diagnosis and prognosis and omitting portions which do not. He does not refer to the cautions and qualifications in the medical literature. He is not current with the medical literature, notably the 2006 prospective longitudinal study by Tischler, which was conducted specifically in order to test the conclusions of the Buskila study.

[85]        Dr. Hunt’s testimony, particularly in cross-examination, supports my conclusions about his report; he acted as the plaintiff’s advocate rather than as an independent expert.

[86]        Dr. Hunt’s report of March 27, 2009 is likely to distort the fact-finding function of the trier of fact, and therefore its prejudicial effect far outweighs its probative value. I find that it is inadmissible. Because the rebuttal report is a reiteration, it is also inadmissible. I specifically reject Dr. Hunt’s diagnoses as expressed in the report and his medical opinion that they were caused by the accident. I reject Dr. Hunt’s diagnosis and prognosis of fibromyalgia and his opinions about the plaintiff’s functional limitations associated with fibromyalgia.

Ultimately the Court accepted that the Plaintiff did suffer from fibromyalgia but that this was not related to the motor vehicle collision.  Madam Justice Gropper found that the Plaintiff did sustain soft tissue injuries to her neck and shoulder along with headaches as  a result of the crash.  $50,000 was awarded for the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages.

In addition to the discussion of ‘advocacy‘ this decision is worth reviewing in full for the Court’s discussion of the relationship between fibromyalgia and trauma.

Excluding Prejudicial Evidence in BC Civil Claims

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 73 Comments on Excluding Prejudicial Evidence in BC Civil Claims


One exception to the general rule that relevant evidence should be admitted in a civil trial deals with prejudice.  If the prejudicial effect of relevant evidence outweighs it’s probative value a trial judge has the discretion of excluding it.  The BC Court of Appeal recently discussed this principle in the context of an ICBC claim.
In today’s case (Gray v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision.  She was allegedly at fault for this crash and was sued by the driver and passenger in the other vehicle involved in the collision.  The Plaintiff was insured with ICBC.  ICBC denied coverage to the Plaintiff arguing that she was impaired at the time of the crash and therefore in breach of her insurance.  The Plaintiff sued ICBC arguing she was not impaired and that ICBC was required to provide her coverage.
After the crash the Plaintiff was given a breathalyzer test by the Vancouver Police Department and her test yielded readings well above the legal limit.  At trial the Plaintiff argued that the breathalyzer readings were faulty because the machine was not set up properly.  ICBC responded with expert evidence stating that “there is nothing to indicate that the Breath Test Supervisor did not set up this instrument correctly“.   The Plaintiff countered pointing out that there was nothing in the police files indicating what set up steps were taken by the Breathalyzer Supervisor.  This left ICBC scrambling and in the course of trial they were able to locate the Breathalyzer Supervisor and the notes detailing the set up steps that were taken at the relevant time.
The Plaintiff objected to this evidence being introduced arguing that it’s late disclosure was severely prejudicial.  The trial judge agreed.  The Court held that while the supervisor could testify he could not rely on  or refer to the breathalyzer maintenance notes in giving his evidence.  Ultimately the Plaintiff succeeded at trial with the judge finding that she was not in breach of her insurance.  ICBC appealed arguing the trial judge was wrong in excluding the evidence.  The BC Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.  In doing so the BC High Court provided the following reasons about the exclusion of prejudicial evidence:
As Mr. Justice Wood said, speaking for this Court in Anderson (Guardian ad litem) v. Erickson (1992), 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 68 (C.A.), “There is no doubt that a Judge trying a civil case in Canada has a discretion to exclude relevant evidence on the ground that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value”…

[27]         In my view, the trial judge erred in her approach to the exclusion of the documentary evidence prepared by Mr. Czech. In exercising her discretion, she was required to balance the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice to Ms. Gray of its admission and to make a judgment whether the prejudice outweighed the probative value. It is apparent that she did not undertake this exercise. Rather, she excluded the evidence after balancing the prejudice to the respondent, Ms. Gray, if the evidence were admitted against the prejudice to the appellants if it were excluded. Thus, she erred in principle in her approach and in failing to take into account a critically important factor – the probative value of the impugned evidence. It follows that she did not exercise her discretion judicially.

[28]         Moreover, the trial judge erred in prohibiting Mr. Czech from using his records to refresh his memory. Witnesses are entitled to refresh their memory by any means, including by inadmissible evidence: see R. v. Fliss, 2002 SCC 16, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 535.

Interestingly the BC Court of Appeal did not determine whether the evidence should have been excluded, rather that the wrong test was used.  The Court directed a new trial requiring the correct principle to be applied in deciding whether the evidence should be admitted.

Lump Sum Costs and the New BC Supreme Court Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 14.


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, finding that the new Civil Rules give the BC Supreme Court the power to award lump sum costs without the need for taxation.  Madam Justice Adair held that this power was not available under the former rules absent party consent.
In today’s case (Madock v. Grauer) the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for damages.  At trial one of the Defendant’s was ordered to pay $5,000 in damages.  The parties could not agree on the cost consequences that followed and applied to the trial judge to address this issue.   Madam Justice Adair ultimately held that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs and fixed these at $11,000.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons about the ability of trial judges to award lump sum costs:

[47]         Under Rule 14-1(15), “The court may award costs (a) of a proceeding . . . and in awarding those costs the court may fix the amount of costs, including the amount of disbursements.”  This Rule is to be contrasted with its counterpart in the old Rules, Rule 57(13), which provided, and I am going to emphasize the first few words:

With the consent of the parties, the court may fix a lump sum as the costs of the whole proceeding, either inclusive or exclusive of disbursements and expenses.

A key change in the new Rule is that consent of the parties is no longer necessary, before the court can fix lump sum costs.

The Court went on to use the new concept of ‘proportionality‘ and found that this was an appropriate case to order lump sum costs.  Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

[49]         I have concluded that these siblings and Mr. Grauer would not be well-served by having a forum – namely, taxation of costs – in which they can continue to litigate over the late Mr. McKenzie’s estate.  Moreover, prolonging litigation among these parties is, in my opinion, out of all proportion to the amount involved, the importance of the issues in dispute and the complexity of the proceeding.  Rather, it is now time for finality.  The costs consequent on my judgment following the trial must also be in some rational proportion to the amount ultimately recovered, which was $5,000.  The costs – indeed the double costs – that the plaintiffs suggest in their submissions they should be awarded are out of all proportion to what would be reasonable.

[50]         I have therefore concluded that, in this case, orders should be made for lump sum costs under Rule 14-1(15)

We Don't Need Your Consent! – ICBC Claims and Medical Reports

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Privacy Issues, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 112 Comments on We Don't Need Your Consent! – ICBC Claims and Medical Reports


If you’re involved in a BC motor vehicle collision and have your injuries treated by a “medical practitioner” ICBC can compel the medical practitioner to provide them with a report documenting your injuries.  This is so even if you are not insured with ICBC and even if you don’t consent.  Reasons for judgement were published this week on the BC Supreme Court’s website discussing this area of law.
In today’s case (Pearlman v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was involved in collision in 2004.  He was insured with a carrier from Washington State.  The other motorist was insured with ICBC.   The Plaintiff initially contacted ICBC and signed an authorization permitting ICBC to obtain medical information relating to his injuries.  About a year later the Plaintiff hired a lawyer and cancelled the authorization.  Despite this ICBC contacted a physician who treated the Plaintiff after the accident (Dr. Lubin) and requested “a narrative medical report“.
Ultimately the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the other motorist was dismissed at trial.  The Plaintiff then sued Dr. Lubin arguing that the physician breached the Plaintiff’s confidence by providing ICBC a medical report when the Plaintiff withdrew his consent for ICBC to obtain his medical information.  The Plaintiff also sued ICBC directly arguing that ICBC improperly requested the medico-legal report.  Both of these lawsuits were dismissed with the BC Supreme Court finding that whether or not ICBC has written authority, section 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act permits ICBC to obtain reports from treating medical practitioners and that practitioners have “no legal choice” other than to comply with such requests.
In the claim against Dr. Lubin Madam Justice Morrison stated as follows about the mandatory nature of section 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act:
[] Dr. Lubin was obligated to provide ICBC with the report as requested.  Dr. Lubin had no legal choice other than to comply with the mandatory request to submit a medical legal report to ICBC.  This did not amount to a breach of confidentiality as alleged by the plaintiff.
In the claim against ICBC Mr. Justice Smith found that it would be an ‘abuse of process‘ to permit the Jury in that action to make findings contrary to Madam Justice Morrison’s previous decision.  Mr. Justice Smith held as follows:

[14]         The plaintiff also sued Dr. Lubin, alleging a number of causes of action, including negligence and breach of confidence.  That action went to trial before Madam Justice Morrison and was dismissed in reasons for judgment dated March 11, 2009.  Madam Justice Morrison held that when ICBC requested the report, Dr. Lubin was obliged to provide it.  She found that obligation arose out of s. 28 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which reads:

If any of the following persons attends to, diagnoses, treats or is consulted by a person injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, he or she must, whenever the corporation requests, provide the corporation, as soon as reasonably practicable, with a report of the injuries and their diagnosis and treatment and a prognosis, in the form the corporation prescribes …

The persons then listed include a medical practitioner….

[20] Madam Justice Morrison’s findings regarding Dr. Lubin’s conduct were made on the same or very similar evidence that is before the Court in this case, and I conclude it would indeed be an abuse of process to invite this jury to make contrary findings.

The Plaintiff appealed Madam Justice Morrison’s decision.  In the course of the Appeal the Plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the event he lost the appeal.  In reviewing this decision the BC Court of Appeal made the following comments on the matter of ICBC ordering reports not in the ‘prescribed form‘:

[19] Even if Mr. Pearlman were to succeed in his argument that the judge erred in finding that Dr. Lubin was required to provide the report under statute – I note, in that regard, that the report was not prepared in form CL 19, which is ICBC’s prescribed form under s. 28 of theInsurance (Vehicle) Act) – it is difficult to see how his appeal could succeed given the trial judge’s clear finding that Dr. Lubin did not cause him any loss.

These decisions illustrate ICBC’s power to get medical reports even absent patient consent.  It can be argued that the Court of Appeal’s comments can leave individuals with little recourse if ICBC goes further than ordering a CL-19 and in fact obtains a full medico-legal report.  A solution, at least insofar as tort claims are concerned, is for plaintiffs to bring this power to the Courts attention when ICBC insured defendants try to obtain independent medical exams in order to ‘level the playing field‘ under the BC Supreme Court Rules.