Tag: Canning v. Mann

ICBC Request for Homemaking Benefit Deduction From Jury Award Denied

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on August 2, 2019. Posted in Cost of Future Care Cases, ICBC No-Fault (Part 7) Benefits.

In recent months ICBC is getting more aggressive in separating part 7 benefits claims and tort claims. In addition to seeking to settle tort claims while leaving part 7 benefits claims open ICBC also appears to be bringing more applications for post trial deductions of part 7 benefits.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering and rejecting an ICBC request to deduct significant damages from an award for future care.

In today’s case (Canning v. Mann) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2015 collision. She was rendered totally disabled as a result. At trial a jury found the Defendant 80% at fault for the crash. Damages were assessed including substantial damages for future care. The Defendant brought an application seeking to reduce the award by over $130,000 arguing that an ICBC homemaking benefit is available. Mr. Justice Basran rejected this argument noting this is a discretionary benefit and the test for securing it was not met. In dismissing this portion of the application the Court provided the following reasons:

Defendant Statement to ICBC Regarding Crash Details Ordered to be Produced

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on May 29, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering production of a statement from a Defendant to ICBC to be disclosed to the Plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit.

In today’s case (Canning v. Mann) the Plaintiff was injured in a crash and sued for damages. The Defendant provided ICBC a statement detailing the circumstances of the crash. The Defendant refused to provide the statement to the Plaintiff in the lawsuit arguing it was privileged. The court ordered production noting there was insufficient evidence to establish litigation privilege. In ordering the statement to be disclosed Mr. Justice Basran provided the following reasons: