Skip to main content

Tag: icbc injury claims

ICBC Claims and Multiple 'Independent Medical Exams'

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, independent medical exams, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on ICBC Claims and Multiple 'Independent Medical Exams'

As I’ve previously posted, 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 30 of the BC Supreme Court rules which allows the court to order an independent exam to level the playing field.
As a monopoly insurer ICBC often has one adjuster assigned to look after a person’s claim for no-fault benefits and at the same time look after the defendant’s interests in the Plaintiff’s tort claim.  Often times ICBC will obtain a no-fault benefits medical exam and then once a tort claim is launched seek a second exam with a different physician pursuant to the BC Supreme Court Rules.  Can ICBC do this?  The answer is sometimes yes but is highly factually dependent and reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with such a fact pattern.
In today’s case (Deacon v. Howe) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff and Defendant were insured with ICBC.  The same ICBC adjuster was looking after the Plaintiff’s no-fault benefits claim and acting on behalf of the defendant in the tort claim.  ICBC sent the Plaintiff for an IME with an orthopaedic surgeon (Dr. Pisesky) as part of the no-fault benefits application process.  In the course of the tort claim the Defendant then sought an order sending the Plaintiff for an IME with a physiatrist.  The Plaintiff opposed this motion.  Master Taylor, in dismissing the motion, discussed and applied the law as follows:

[15] The issues I have to determine are:

(1) whether the report of Dr. Pisesky is a report pursuant to Part 7, or whether it is a first IME report based upon the extent and content of the report; and

(2) If the report of Dr. Pisesky is considered a first IME, would the defendants be entitled to seek a further examination pursuant to Rule 30(2).

[16] Madam Justice Dillon considered these very issues in Robertson v. Grist, 2006 BCSC 1245.  In relation to the first issue, she said this at paragraph 14:

Whether the Part 7 examination constitutes a first independent medical examination depends upon the scope of the examination, given the rest of the circumstances here.  There was no limitation on Dr. Jaworski’s examination and the request letter covered matters that would solely be relevant to a tort action.  The doctor’s report was not limited to a rehabilitation opinion about whether the injuries sustained in the accident totally disabled the plaintiff from work within 20 days of the accident and for a period of 104 weeks or less, the criteria in section 80 of the Part 7 benefits Regulations. The examination was a first independent medical examination within the meaning of Rule 30.

[17] There is evidence that this particular claims adjuster was acting in both the Part 7 and tort claim.  At the time of the examination of the plaintiff by Dr. Pisesky on July 16, 2006 the plaintiff was represented by counsel and the writ and statement of claim had been issued and served on ICBC.  Accordingly, I have formed the opinion, following upon the analysis of Dillon, J. that the report of Dr. Pisesky is a first report based on the nature and content of the report.

[18] In relation to whether the defendants would be entitled to a further examination pursuant to Rule 30(2), Dillon, J. said this at paragraph 15:

Should a second independent medical examination be ordered?  The test for a second opinion was recently re-stated by Master Hyslop in Shaw v. Koch (2004), 4 C.P.C. (6th) 271, 2004 BCSC 634 at para. 25 [Shaw], from the decision in Jackson v. Miller, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2751 at para. 12 (S.C.) (QL) [Jackson], to the effect that a second opinion on the same matter cannot be obtained unless something has occurred since the first examination which was not foreseeable or for which could not have been addressed by the examiner on the first occasion.  The defendant has conceded that there are no grounds to justify a second examination. In these circumstances, the second independent medical examination by an overlapping specialty doctor should not be ordered.

[19] In the instant case, the defendants, as earlier indicated, contend that they are entitled to have an IME from a physiatrist in order to put the parties on an equal footing.  The defendants’ argument is that if the plaintiff has the opinion of two physiatrists then the defendants should be entitled to an IME by a physiatrist in order to put the parties on an equal footing.  As well, the defendants have successfully sought an order to have the plaintiff examined by Dr. Solomon, a psychiatrist.  That examination occurred on May 14, 2009.

[20] In Guglielmucci the defendant provided an opinion from a psychiatrist as to the necessity of an IME by a psychiatrist.  In the case at bar no such opinion has been provided for the benefit of the court and no evidence has been provided that there has been a change in the plaintiff’s condition since Dr. Pisesky’s last medical report.  The affidavit of a paralegal was provided by the defendants in which the deponent says at paragraphs 9 and 13:

[9] The plaintiff had attended the IME with Dr. Pisesky at the request of the then handling adjuster, David Burdett, which was arranged under Part 7 of the Regulations with respect to the plaintiff’s application for Part 7 benefits, and prior to defence counsel being retained on or about July 10, 2006.

[13] I have been advised by John Hemmerling, and verily believe to be true, that Dr. Coghlan is his referred choice of medical examiner to conduct an IME of the plaintiff in the tort action due to his expertise in the field of physiatry and the thoroughness of his assessments and his willingness and ability to read and interpret the medical information sent to him in order to form a reasoned opinion for the court and that this IME is required to assess the opinions of Dr. le Nobel and Dr. Vallentyne.

[21] I am of the view that the affidavit of this deponent is of no assistance to the application of the defendants.  As was said by the court in Haleta v. Jehn and Others, 2008 BCSC 1522, “there is nothing new here that has arisen that would give the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant.”

[22] Dr. Pisesky’s report of July 16, 2006 was thorough.  It addressed issues far beyond a basic Part 7 report.  In my view there is no need for a physiatrist to examine the plaintiff, especially in view of the plaintiff’s agreement to be seen and assessed once again by Dr. Pisesky.  Accordingly, the defendants’ application for an IME by Dr. Coghlin is dismissed.

[23] The plaintiff shall have her costs of this application.

ICBC Injury Claims, Video Surveillance and Disclosure

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Privacy Issues, Uncategorized.

It is not uncommon for insurance companies such as ICBC to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs involved in injury litigation.  Normally such video evidence is protected by privilege and ICBC does not need to disclose it unless they want to rely on it at trial.  In these circumstances the BC Supreme Court Rules don’t require disclosure until shortly before trial.
What if ICBC shares the evidence with their expert witnesses?  Does this result in a waiver of privilege?  The BC Supreme Court dealt with this issue in 2006 and today reasons for judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Johnston were transcribed and published by the BC Courts website addressing these facts.
In the decision released today (Lanthier v. Volk) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision and was prepared to proceed to trial.  The defence lawyer delivered expert medical reports which relied in part on the facts depicted in video surveillance conducted on behalf of the Defendant.  The Plaintiff asked for disclosure of these films and Defendant refused claiming privilege over the films.
On application of the Plaintiff for disclosure Mr. Justice Johnston held that disclosure of the films to the defendants expert physicians resulted in a waiver of privilege such that the films needed to be disclosed to the Plaintiff.  The courts key reasoning is reproduced below:

[16] The competing consideration is that the tendency given the rules, such as the Evidence Act, ss. 10 and 11, Rule 40A and the rules relating to production, has been over the last number of years away from what used to be a trial by ambush style of advocacy toward pre-trial disclosure, forced or otherwise, in order to prevent two things:  One, impediments to settlement that keeping all one’s cards close to the vest tends to foster, but more to the point, what I indicated was a concern during argument, and that is the possibility, likelihood or probability that late disclosure, as Mr. Turnham would have it when counsel decides to call the witness or tender the written opinion, might lead to an adjournment of the trial, or, at minimum, an argument in the middle of a jury trial whether it should be adjourned.

[17] I conclude that privilege over the video has been waived by the delivery of reports of experts who have stated, each of them, that they have relied upon, in part, what they saw on the video.  I conclude that waiver is more logical, more defensible when what truly is disclosed in the reports ostensibly as the facts upon which the expert — and I refer now particularly to Dr. Warren who most helpfully listed what he observed — the facts upon which the expert relied, is, when really that expert’s interpretation of what the expert saw on the videotape.  It is not possible, in my view, for the opposing party to adequately prepare, either to cross-examine the expert if the expert is called, or to brief the parties’ own witnesses, on the strength of a description in writing of a witness’s interpretation of what is shown on the video.  To adequately prepare for trial the plaintiff must have the videotape to show to his witnesses and to review himself.  Trial fairness, as well as the promotion of efficiency in the courts and the trial process, dictates disclosure, so I order the videotape disclosed forthwith.

More on ICBC Tort Claims and Pre-Existing Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

How is a claim for compensation affected if you suffer from pre-existing injuries and as a result of the fault of another have your injuries aggravated?  If your injuries would have deteriorated eventually without the intervening event your claim for damages can be adjusted accordingly.  This is sometimes referred to as the ‘crumbling skull’ principle and reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, applying this point of law.
In today’s case (Jopling v. Bradowich) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 BC Car Crash.  The Plaintiff’s accident related injuries included headaches, disturbed sleep, depression and chronic pain.  However, the Plaintiff suffered from pre-existing problems which were summarized by Mr. Justice Rice as follows: “ I am satisfied that the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing injuries to her lower back prior to the motor vehicle accident, and that there was a general degeneration of her spine, all of which were likely to lead her to the condition that she now experiences, although probably not as soon as it did because of the accident.”
The Court valued the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering) at $75,000 but then reduced this award by 20% to ‘reflect the contingencies that her back and shoulder pain would have manifested regardless of the accident‘.
In reaching this conclusion Mr. Justice Rice made the following observations of the law of causation in BC personal injury claims:

29] The principal issue in this action is whether the plaintiff’s individual injuries were caused by the accident, or whether they were only aggravations of pre-existing injuries.

[30] Proof of causation is determined by the “but for” test: Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, at para. 14; Hanke v. Resurfice, 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333, at para. 21). If I find that “but for” the defendant’s conduct the plaintiff would not have been injured, then the defendant is liable for all the damages flowing from those injuries.  If the conduct of the defendant is unrelated to the alleged loss, then the defendant is not liable.

[31] It is no answer to a plaintiff’s claim for damages that he or she would have suffered less injury or no injury at all had he or she been less susceptible.  If an individual has a pre-existing condition, the person who injures that individual must take him or her as found: Athey, at para. 34.

[32] However, if the plaintiff’s injuries would have manifested themselves on their own in the future regardless of the defendant’s conduct, the court must apply a contingency factor to address that possibility.  Such a contingency does not have to be proven to a certainty.  Rather, it should be given weight according to its relative likelihood: Athey, at para. 35.

ICBC Claims, Soft Tissue Injuries and Credibility

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 4 Comments on ICBC Claims, Soft Tissue Injuries and Credibility

Soft tissue injuries without objective signs are some of the most frequently litigated claims.  One of the reasons why is because credibility plays a vital role in these claims and ICBC often challenges the credibility of Plaintiff’s alleging such injuries.
Reasons for judgement were released on Friday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with just such a claim.  In Friday’s case (Tayler v. Loney) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 BC Car Crash.  Her injuries included soft tissue injury to her neck and back.  These injuries unfortunately continued to linger for many years.  By the time of trial the Plaintiff’s pain was ongoing.  ICBC’s response to this was that the Plaintiff was no longer injured and was simply ‘lying to the court’.
Mr. Justice Grauer rejected ICBC’s position and accepted that she indeed did suffer injuries in the car crash which continued to bother her to the time of trial.  Damages of $42,500 were awarded for the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering).  Since ICBC put the Plaintiff’s credibility squarely in issue the court had to address this head on.  In doing so the court engaged in a thoughtful discussion about credibility in ICBC injury claims where there is no objective sign of injury.  Mr. Justice Grauer summarized and applied this area of law as follows:

[65] While I have found that the plaintiff is in fact experiencing what she says she is experiencing, I also accept the weight of the medical opinion that there is no objective evidence of ongoing soft tissue injury.  In these circumstances, it is helpful to turn for guidance to the authorities to which counsel referred me, always remembering that each case turns on its own unique facts.

[66] In Butler v. Blaylock (7 October 1980), Vancouver Reg. No. B781505 (S.C.), McEachern C.J.S.C. (as he then was) remarked as follows:

I am not stating any new principle when I say that the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery.

An injured person is entitled to be fully and properly compensated for any injury or disability caused by the wrongdoer.  But no one can expect his fellow citizen or citizens to compensate him in the absence of convincing evidence – which could be just his own evidence if the surrounding circumstances are consistent – that his complaints of pain are true reflections of a continuing injury.

[67] Counsel for the defendant relied in particular on the judgment of Taylor J.A. for the Court of Appeal in Maslen v. Rubenstein (8 September 1993), Victoria Reg. No. V01071 (C.A.), where the court was concerned with:

… those post-traumatic phenomena – sometimes identified with and sometimes distinguished from conditions known as “idiopathic pain disorder”, “chronic (or chronic benign) pain syndrome”, “functional overlay” and “somatoform pain disorder” – which involve continued suffering in accident victims after their physical injuries have healed.

[68] At paras. 8-12, Taylor J.A. went on to describe the basic principles applicable to these “difficult cases”:

To meet the onus which lies on the plaintiff in the case of this sort, and thereby avoid the ‘ultimate risk of non-persuasion’, the plaintiff must, in my view, establish that his or her psychological problems have their cause in the defendant’s unlawful act, rather than in any desire on the plaintiff’s part for things such as care, sympathy, relaxation or compensation, and also that the plaintiff could not be expected to overcome them by his or her own inherent resources, or ‘will-power’.

If psychological problems exist, or continue, because the plaintiff for some reason wishes  to have them, or does not wish them to end, their existence or continuation must, in my view, be said to have a subjective, or internal, cause.  To show that the cause lies in an unlawful act of the defendant, rather than the plaintiff’s own choice, the plaintiff must negative that alternative.  The resolution of this issue will not involve considerations of mitigation, or lack of mitigation.  To hold otherwise, that is to say to place on the defendant the onus of proving that a plaintiff who suffers from a psychological problem had it within his or her own ability to overcome it, would be to require that the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, bear the onus of proof on the primary issue of causation, and would impose on defendants a heavy and unjustifiable burden.  If the court could not say whether the plaintiff really desired to be free of the psychological problem, the plaintiff would not, in my view, have established his or her case on the critical issue of causation.

Any question of mitigation, or failure to mitigate, arises only after causation has thus been established.

Where the court finds that psychological injury has been suffered as a result of unlawful conduct of the defendant which the plaintiff has not the ability to overcome by his or her own inherent resources, the court must then, if mitigation issues are raised, decide whether the defendant has established that by following advice which the plaintiff received or ought to have obtained, the plaintiff could have overcome the problem, or could in future overcome it….  Where appropriate remediable measures would resolve the problem, damages can, of course, be awarded only in respect of the period up to the date when, in the estimation of the fact-finder, the problem ought to have been resolved, or ought to be resolved.

Once the principles to be applied are recognized, the rest is a matter for the fact-finder to determine on the basis of the evidence in the case, and it is for this reason that I find little guidance in many of the decisions cited.

[69] Plaintiff’s counsel relied heavily on the judgment of Spencer J. In Netter v. Baas (14 February 1995), Vancouver Reg. No. B930557 (S.C.), where the learned judge commented as follows:

Over the ensuing 33 months, no doctors save one, has been able to find a satisfactory objective cause for [the plaintiff’s] continuing pain related to this accident.  All the doctors who filed reports agree that he suffered soft tissue injury and resulting pain, but none explains why the pain should have been so severe and lasted so long.  This is the classic case of the plaintiff without objective symptoms who claims an almost total disability from his former physical occupations….

Such cases invite skepticism on the part of the defendant who is asked to pay for such an extreme result.  But this is a plaintiff who claims a formerly very physical lifestyle in the outdoors.  Although he worked in a sawmill in town for the year preceding the accident, much of his life to age 37 had been spent outdoors as a driller-blaster, a prospector and part-time farmer.  His hobbies involve the outdoors too, camping, canoeing, hiking and fishing.  Some of the doctors who examined him remarked upon his strength and build.  Would such a person willingly abandon the lifestyle he had previously embraced for the sake of the chance of an exaggerated accident claim?  There are cases where plaintiffs have done that but generally there is evidence from which that can be determined.  No evidence was called to challenge the accuracy of this evidence about his previous lifestyle.

[70] Turning to the present case, there is, as I have noted, no doubt that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders, upper and lower back, causing pain, headaches and disability.  I have also found that although she genuinely continues to experience pain and disability, there is no objective evidence of continuing injury.  There is no muscle-wasting, atrophy or limitation of motion, and she has been observed to be capable of spontaneous movements inconsistent with continuing physical injury.

[71] What, then, is the explanation for the delay in the plaintiff’s recovery?  On the evidence before me, I conclude that the answer lies in a combination of factors, identified by both Dr. Yuzak and Dr. Teal, although in different ways.  Dr. Teal described it as a psychological predisposition to the effects of trauma, noting her five previous motor vehicle accidents, and her profession.  Dr. Yuzak referred to the three complicating factors of her five previous accidents, her status as a health practitioner, and an environment that was not conducive to healing.  I find that all of these have played a part, and explain why the plaintiff has not recovered as one might otherwise have expected.

[72] I do not consider that this psychological and circumstantial predisposition has a subjective, or internal, cause in the sense of being the plaintiff’s own choice, as discussed in the Maslencase.  Rather, it is the effect of the defendant’s unlawful conduct upon the plaintiff’s pre-existing state that has resulted in the circumstances in which the plaintiff now finds herself, subject to the issue of mitigation.  I do not accept that the stresses in the plaintiff’s life since the accident constitute a novus actus interveniens, as submitted by the defendant.  Those stresses are of the sort that many people experience, and but for her injuries, would not in my view have caused the plaintiff any loss.

[73] Accordingly, I find that the plaintiff has established that her ongoing state of experiencing pain and disability was caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Can a BC Resident Injured Abroad Sue for Damages in British Columbia?

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 55 Comments on Can a BC Resident Injured Abroad Sue for Damages in British Columbia?

The answer is contained in the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and today reasons for Judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with this issue.
In today’s case (Roed v. Scheffler) the Plaintiff was injured on June 25, 2006 in Washington State as a result of the alleged negligence of 2 Washington State Residents or in the alternative John Doe or ICBC pursuant to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act’s unidentified motorist provisions.
The Plaintiff, a BC Resident, brought her tort claim for damages in the BC Supreme Court.  The defendants challenged the courts jurisdiction to hear the case a brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Madam Justice Bruce of the BC Supreme Court granted the defendants motion and in staying the lawsuit the court summarized and applied the law as follows:
[38] Certainly the fact Ms. Roed continued to suffer from her injuries in British Columbia and sought treatment here are “facts upon which the proceeding against the [defendants] is based.” Clearly, the continuing harm caused by the negligence of the defendants will form a significant part of Ms. Roed’s claim for non-pecuniary damages.

[39] Are these connections to British Columbia sufficient to meet the real and substantial connection test? The only similar case cited by Ms. Roed where the court assumed jurisdiction isMuscutt. However, based on the discussion in that case, it is doubtful that the Ontario Court of Appeal would have taken jurisdiction on the facts of the case before me. In particular, Sharpe J.A. found that the nature and extent of the damages suffered by the plaintiff within the jurisdiction was a factor and that, unless it was significant, the court should decline jurisdiction: Muscutt at para. 79. In this case, apart from providing a list of medical practitioners she has seen, Ms. Roed does not describe the nature of her injuries or the treatment she has undergone. Further, Ms. Roed deposes that she has suffered a loss of income but does not quantify it.

[40] There are other factors that were found significant in Muscutt that are missing in this case:

1.         The defendants were engaged in business activities that involved an inherent risk of harm to extra-provincial parties. The plaintiff was struck by a commercial vehicle and this vehicle was subsequently struck by an ambulance. The defendants were apparently insured against suits in all Canadian provinces.

2.         The accident occurred in another Canadian province where the enforcement and recognition of an Ontario judgment would not be an issue. In addition, fairness to the defendant is not a concern because the same test of real and substantial connection applies throughout the country. For this reason, Sharpe J. A. concluded that there is generally a more lenient approach to assuming jurisdiction in interprovincial cases as opposed to international actions: Muscutt at paras. 95-99.

[41] In contrast, cases involving defendants from other countries pose more difficult jurisdictional issues. Because enforcement of the judgment in the foreign jurisdiction is a factor to consider in the real and substantial connection test, the approach to jurisdiction taken by the foreign country when the connecting factor is the location of damages is a relevant concern. Of significance to the case at hand, Sharpe J.A. refers to the law in the United States on this issue at para. 105 of Muscutt:

By contrast, in other countries, it appears that damage sustained within the jurisdiction is only accepted as a basis for assumed jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. As discussed above, in the United States, the minimum contacts doctrine requires an act or conduct on the part of the defendant that amounts to personal subjection to the jurisdiction. Without more, damage sustained in the jurisdiction does not satisfy the doctrine.

[42] The constitutional limits on the reach of provincial legislation were expressly addressed in Muscutt by incorporating into the real and substantial connection test the concepts of fairness (toward the foreign defendant) and jurisdictional restraint in the application of the test. While the language of s. 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act does not appear to expressly incorporate these concepts, the court must interpret and apply this provision consistent with the constitutional limits on provincial legislation both inter-provincially and internationally. The discussion contained in Muscutt underlines the risks inherent in a decision to take jurisdiction without due consideration of the international aspects of the proceedings. Specifically, if the court takes jurisdiction based upon a broad application of the test, and one inconsistent with the laws in the foreign jurisdiction, the judgment may not be enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction where the defendant resides.

[43] Turning to the facts of the case before me, I find the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the test for territorial competence articulated in s. 3 (e) of the Act. I find the fact that the plaintiff continues to suffer damages in British Columbia insufficient to establish a real and substantial connection on its own.  These damages are suffered in British Columbia purely as a result of the plaintiff’s residence here. To find a real and substantial connection based on these facts would be to effectively base jurisdiction entirely on the plaintiff’s residence. As set out above, it is well established that a plaintiff’s residence is not sufficient grounds for a territorial competence.

[44] In my view, the reference to “damages” as a factor favouring jurisdiction simpliciter in Jordan and the test articulated in Morguard are directed at the place in which the injury actually occurs rather than the place where the plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering or economic loss. While the latter circumstances are important, there must be something more to establish a real and substantial connection between BC and the facts upon which the action is based.

[45] This not a situation where the competing jurisdiction is another Canadian province in which case a more lenient standard may apply. Comity requires the court to consider the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that prevail in the foreign state when applying the real and substantial connection test.

CONCLUSION

[46] For these reasons, I find the Supreme Court of British Columbia lacks territorial competence over the defendant Ms. Scheffler. The plaintiff’s action against Ms. Scheffler is stayed pursuant to Rule 14(6)(a).

[47] Ms. Scheffler is entitled to party and party costs at scale B.

BC Injury Claims, Expert Evidence and The Duty to the Court

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Ankle Injury Cases, ICBC Knee Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

One of the Rules regarding the conduct of expert witnesses in the BC Supreme Court is that they owe a duty to the court to be ‘independent’ and ‘unbiased’ in their opinions.  If experts fail to discharge this duty their evidence can be given little weight or even held inadmissible.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court demonstrating this principle of law.
In today’s case (Rizzolo v. Brett) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 motorcycle accident when a left turning driver proceeded in front of the Plaintiff in an intersection in Maple Ridge, BC.  The defendant was found fully liable for this collision (the case contains a good discussion of the duties of left turning motorists and is worth reviewing for anyone interested in this area of the law).
The Plaintiff suffered significant fractures of his tibia and fibula which required surgical intervention.  Damages of over $560,000 were awarded including $125,000 for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) for the injuries which were summarized by Madam Justice Allan as follows:

[41] Mr. Rizzolo`s altered position, arising from the Accident caused by the defendant’s negligence, is characterized by continuing pain, changed mood, loss of ability to work effectively and happily, and a much-reduced capacity to engage in recreational sports.  He must take pain killers and anti-inflammatories although they upset his stomach, requiring him to take additional medication.

[42] At present, Mr. Rizzolo experiences constant pain in his left ankle, which is exacerbated by his work activities.  His left foot swells and he experiences occasional pain in his left knee.  He limps when he is tired or in severe pain.  He takes the following medication: Advil once or twice a week for pain management; Celebrex, an anti-inflammatory, daily; and amitriptylene, an antidepressant, twice a week to help him sleep.  He receives periodic cortisone injections from Dr. Dhawan.

[43] Mr. Rizzolo’s injuries are permanent and they affect his entire life – his job, his recreational and family life, and his sense of well-being.  I do not find that he exaggerated his symptoms and he is highly motivated to be as active as possible.

In advancing his claim the Plaintiff called evidence of an expert witness, an occupational therapist, who had conducted a functional capacity evaluation of the Plaintiff to assist the court in determining a fair award for cost of future care.  The expert employed a ‘unique motion capture system known as the Functional Assessment of Biomechanics System [FAB] to measure biomechanical forces.’  In cross examination evidence came out that this expert was ‘an inventor of FAB‘.  Having this fact revealed in cross examination (as opposed to being revealed up front) appaears to have caused the presiding judge to reject all the evidence of this expert.

In rejecting the evidence of this occupational therapist Madam Justice Allan summarized and applied the law of objectivity of expert witnesses as follows:

[104] In R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, the Court reiterated that expert witnesses have duties and responsibilities.  In particular, an expert witness is expected to provide an independent, unbiased opinion that is adequately researched and falls within his or her ambit of experience.

[105] I consider Mr. McNeil’s failure to disclose the fact that he is the principal of Biosyn and that he was an inventor of FAB to represent a shocking lack of candour.  As he has testified in the courts on numerous occasions, he is well aware that the duty of an expert is to assist the court with an independent and objective opinion on a particular issue.  To withhold such relevant information misleads the court and, as I have no choice but to reject all of his written and verbal evidence, constitutes a substantial waste of time.   It is impossible to parse out Mr. McNeil’s evidence as a qualified expert from that as an undisclosed salesman for Biosyn.

[106] I do not fault counsel for the plaintiff as I accept Mr. Kazimirski’s statement that he was unaware of Mr. McNeil’s association with Biosyn before Mr. Joudrey’s cross-examination.  While the plaintiff will be entitled to his costs in the result, he may not claim any costs relating to Mr. McNeil’s reports or attendance in court.  Counsel may address the issue of whether the defence is entitled to costs for two days of trial.

More on BC Hit and Run Accidents

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 54 Comments on More on BC Hit and Run Accidents

I’ve previously posted that victims of Hit and Run accidents in BC can make a claim directly against ICBC in tort in certain circumstnaces under Section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act
Section 24 has certain restrictions built in limiting the circumstances when ICBC can be sued as a nominal defendant.  One of these restrictions requires an injured Plaintiff to take reasonable efforts to identify the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.
Reasons for judgement were released today addressing a victim’s obligations to make ‘reasonable efforts’ to identify the driver/owner of offending vehicles in s. 24 ICBC hit and run claims.
In today’s case (Fan v. ICBC) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC Car Crash.  She failed to identify the at fault motorist and brough a claim direclty against ICBC for her pain and suffering and other losses in tort. The Plaintiff’s case was dismissed for failing to take reasonable efforts to identify the at fault motorist.  In dismissing the claim Mr. Justice Curtis explained the duty of motorists involved in s. 24 hit and run claims to make ‘reasonalbe efforts’ as follows:

[20] The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered what was then s. 23 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act in the case of Leggett v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1992] B.C.J. No. 2048.  In that case, a man whose car was rear ended spoke to the driver who hit him and both agreed each would look after his own damage.  The man did not bother to obtain the name of the driver or owner of the vehicle because he did not plan to make any claim.  He later sought to recover damages for injury from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

[21] Taylor J.A. in delivering the Reasons of the Court of Appeal, dismissing the claim, held at paras. 7 – 13 of the Reasons:

Here the trial judge was of the view that Mr. Leggett’s ignorance of his injury until the following day made it reasonable that he would not until then make any effort to obtain identification particulars. The judge found that the efforts which Mr. Leggett thereafter made to trace the owner and driver were “reasonable” for the purpose of Section 23(5).

I find myself unable, with respect, entirely to agree with the approach taken by the trial judge.

The section provides a means by which a person who has suffered injury or property damage in a motor vehicle accident may obtain compensation from the government insurer even though the driver said to be at fault, and the owner of the vehicle which was being driven by that person, are insured in another jurisdiction or not insured at all, even though the corporation will, in any event, be unable to look to the other driver for assistance in resisting the claim, and even though the corporation will be unable to obtain reimbursement in the event the other driver is uninsured or there has been a policy breach, or to obtain contribution by way of increased premiums through forfeiture of the other party’s ‘safe driving’ discount. As the trial judge recognized, protection against fraudulent claims is only one of the purposes of the requirement that the claimant show inability to identify the other driver and owner as a condition of being able to claim under the section. In my view the overall purpose of the section is to limit the exposure of the corporation to claims brought by persons who, in the matter of seeking to identify those responsible for the accident, have done everything they reasonably could to protect what ordinarily would be their own interests, and which, by virtue of the section, become the interests of the corporation.

The corporation’s exposure under the section is limited to claims brought by those who could not have ascertained the identity of the parties responsible. It does not, in my view, extend to claims by those who have chosen not to do so.

I do not think the words “not ascertainable” should be strictly interpreted, so as to mean “could not possibly have been ascertained”. I think they are to be interpreted with reference to subsection (5) so as to mean “could not have been ascertained had the claimant made all reasonable efforts, having regard to the claimant’s position, to discover them”. Where a person knows that he or she has been involved in a motor vehicle accident, but refrains even from recording the licence number of the other vehicle, when that number is visible and the claimant could, had he or she wished, reasonably have recorded it, such a claimant must, in my view, find it particularly difficult, and probably impossible, to establish that he or she made all reasonable efforts to discover the identity of the owner and driver of that vehicle for the purposes of the section.

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

I think that in essence the test is that which was formulated by Hinkson, L.J.S.C. (as he then was) in King et al v. A.G. (B.C.) (1968), 66 W.W.R. 223 (B.C.S.C.), followingRossiter v. Chaisson, [1950] O.W.N. 265 (Ont. H.C.). In the King case, which was decided under the then Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1960 Chapter 253, the judge (at p. 226) held the appropriate test to be whether the claimants had “pursued the investigation to identify the vehicle and its owner and driver as resolutely and resourcefully as they would have done in like circumstances” had there been no such provision. In order to accommodate the current statutory requirement in the present context, I would add, after the words “would have done in like circumstances”, the words “if the claimant intended to pursue any right of action which he or she might have arising out of the accident”.

[22] In the case of Johal v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and John Doe, Mr. Johal was struck by a car while walking across a street.  The driver got out of his vehicle and asked Mr. Johal how he was, but Mr. Johal, having been traumatized by the collision did not think to ask for the driver’s identity.  When the ambulance arrived, he said he felt fine and took a taxi.  The next morning his left knee was swollen and he realized he had been hurt.  Two days after the accident, he telephoned ICBC and the police.  The police told him he had to report in person which he did 12 days after the collision.  About six weeks after the accident, he advertised for witnesses in the information wanted section of a small neighbourhood paper.

[23] Esson C.J.C. as he then was, in dismissing Mr. Johal’s claims ruled as follows:

… I do not think that the plaintiff’s action is precluded by his failure to do more than he did on the Saturday evening. Although he may not have been in “shock” in a technical sense, it is understandable that he was in some state of confusion and, bearing in mind that he then believed he had not been injured, I would not hold against him his failure to get information at that time.

But, by the next morning, the plaintiff was aware that he was suffering from an injury. He did nothing until the following day. His conduct in telephoning I.C.B.C. that day and giving a full written report within days thereafter was reasonable enough, but only in a most indirect way can it be described as an effort to ascertain the identity of the owner or driver. A timely report to the police would have been more in point; to defer that step for a further ten days was less than reasonable. The advertisement in the personal column was so belated and in an organ of such limited circulation as not to be reasonable. There is no evidence of any attempt to track down the ambulance crew or of any effort to find witnesses at the location. The test which the plaintiff must meet is to satisfy the court that he made “all reasonable efforts”. In a case, such as this, where there is no suggestion of fraud, I would regard “reasonable” as the fundamental element of the test. It should not be made so exacting that it cannot be met. But, on the facts proved here, I cannot be satisfied that the plaintiff has met the test.

[24] The wording of the section itself and previous decisions clearly establish that the onus is on Ms. Fan to establish that she made all reasonable efforts to establish the identity of the owner and driver.  (Nelson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2003 BCSC 121, paras. 17 and 18):

On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that “all reasonable efforts have been made … to ascertain the identity of the unknown owner and driver …”

[25] Firstly, Ms. Fan’s evidence about what happened at the scene is contradictory.  Her trial evidence was that another vehicle parked between her and the one that struck her which combined with the dark, prevented her from seeing the license plate while she was walking toward it.  Previous statements she gave suggest there was only one vehicle.  At trial, she testified she spoke to the second man and perhaps the driver did not speak English.  In her statement to ICBC three weeks after the accident, she said, “The other driver said that his car is ok ….  He asked  me what happened to me ….”  Ms. Fan’s evidence is not sufficiently reliable for me to determine what actually occurred and on that basis to decide whether her actions at the scene were reasonable or not.

[26] Secondly, even if Ms. Fan’s attempts at the scene, such as they were, were reasonable, her attempts to identify the owner and driver thereafter were not.  When she spoke to the police at the time she mistakenly believed the accident took place on United Boulevard.  When she spoke to the police, they told her to report the matter to ICBC.  It was clear at that point the police were not going to be investigating who had hit her.  Making a sign to post a month later then not putting it out because it was raining was no effort at all.  Nor was placing advertisements in theVancouver Sun and Province three months later, a genuine or reasonable effort.  Driving around looking for the car 15 minutes at a time for a couple of weeks following the collision, assuming that was done is in the absence of other reasonable steps is not sufficient.

[27] Patricia Fan has failed to prove that she has complied with the requirements of s. 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and is therefore not entitled to claim damages against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia directly under s. 24.  The claim against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is dismissed.

Lawyers Opinions, Mistrials and ICBC Injury Claims

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

US Trial Lawyer Elliott Wilcox recently wrote a great article on why “I” is one of the most dangerous words for a lawyer to utter in court during a jury trial.  The short answer is because it is inappropriate for lawyers to share their personal opinion as to the merits of a case.  When a lawyer uses the word “I” there is a good chance a personal opinion is going to follow.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal demonstrating the repercussions of counsel sharing their opinions during jury trials.
In today’s case (Joy v. Atkinson) the Plaintiff’s lawyer made several comments during his opening statement to the jury which the ICBC defence lawyer took objection to.  After hearing submissions in the absence of the jury the trial judge granted a motion for a mistrial (click here to read my previous post about the trial judgement).
In dismissing the appeal the BC Court of Appeal said the following about lawyers sharing their personal opinion of the merits of the case in jury trials:

[20]          Whether the plaintiff’s argument is otherwise sound need not be decided because there is a further aspect of counsel’s opening that is of particular concern.  Counsel expressed his personal belief in the strength of the plaintiff’s case when he told the jury “we had to satisfy ourselves that Mr. Joy’s injuries are real, serious, and permanent” and that “Geno Joy has and will continue to suffer real harms and losses now and into the future”.  In my view, there is no doubt this was clearly an improper statement.  Counsel acknowledged that to be the case in submissions on the application for a mistrial.  He was in effect giving evidence, albeit inadmissible evidence that could never be challenged, about the plaintiff’s injuries and his losses. 

[21]          Counsel’s suggestion before the judge was that any damage done could be corrected by a jury instruction or what he referred to as a “rebuke”.  But no meaningful suggestion as to what that instruction might be was made nor is one advanced now.  I am unable to see what instruction the judge could have given the jury that would have afforded the defence any confidence counsel’s expression of his satisfaction with the plaintiff’s claim would be ignored.  The jury had been told counsel had satisfied himself – he knew, apparently by investigation – the injuries suffered which the defence was challenging were real, serious, and permanent and they had caused, and would in the future cause, real losses.  That was not an assertion each member of the jury could be expected to completely ignore no matter what they were told, and it bore directly on the fairness of the trial.

[22]          The judge did not refer to this part of the opening statement in the reasons he gave for declaring a mistrial but, in my view, it is fatal to the success of this appeal.  It cannot now be said there was no sound basis for a mistrial.

BC Personal Injury Claims and Circumstantial Evidence

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

If you are injured in BC through the actions of another but can’t gather any direct evidence proving that the other party is at fault can you still succeed in a claim for damages?  The answer is yes a lies in circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that stands on its own to prove a fact :”I saw the Defendant get drunk, get behind the wheel speeding like a maniac and hit the pedestrian“.  Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence that proves a fact by an inference “the defendant had 12 drinks on his bar tab and at the scene of the accident he was found unconscious in the driver seat, smelling of alcohol, in front of the pedestrian who was found injured in the crosswalk“.  In the first example there is direct evidence of drunk driving causing injury, in the second example there is evidence that can lead to the reasonable conclusion of drunk driving causing injury.
Negligence in BC Personal Injury cases can be found wholly on circumstantial evidence and today reasons were released by the BC Court of Appeal dealing with the law of circumstantial evidence in an ICBC claim.
In today’s case, Michel v. Doe and ICBC, the Plaintiff was “seriously injured by an object that had come off a loaded logging truck being driven by an unidentified driver.”   The Plaintiff sued for damages.   Since the driver left the scene of the injury and could not be identified the Plaintiff could not prove what specifically, if anything, the driver did wrong in contributing to this object coming off the logging truck.  The lawsuit was dismissed at the trial level due to a lack of evidence of negligence.  The Plaintiff appealed.
The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but in doing so discussed the law dealing with circumstantial evidence in BC personal injury claims.  The highlights of this discussion are reproduced below:

[21]          In Marchuk v. Swede Creek Contracting Ltd. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 318, this Court observed that Fontaine had not modified the underlying principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence with respect to liability in negligence, and emphasized that the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff:

[9]        The Supreme Court of Canada has recently said that the Latin maxim res ipsa loquitur should be abandoned as confusing and unhelpful in cases involving circumstantial evidence of negligence:  Fontaine v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1997), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 577.  That case was decided after the judgment at trial in the case at bar.

[10]      While the Supreme Court was critical of the Latin maxim, the underlying principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence in determining liability for negligence were not modified.  The issue becomes simply whether, after weighing the whole of the direct and circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant, and that inference has not been negated by the defendant’s evidence.  The legal burden of proof, of course, remains on the plaintiff throughout.

[22]          The appellant argues that the “question which must be asked and which the learned trial judge did not ask is whether, in the particular circumstances established by the evidence, the accident would ordinarily occur without negligence.”  However, this question was posed in Fontaine in the context of the Court’s discussion regarding the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur during the course of its “obituary” for the Latin maxim (Gillis v. B.C. Transit, 2001 BCCA 248 at para. 4, 88 B.C.L.R. (3d) 163).  Nonetheless, it is arguable that despite the reformulation given in Fontaine, this question remains relevant to the issue of whether a prima facie case of negligence has been made out.  In Fontaine itself, in concluding that the circumstantial evidence present did not discharge the plaintiff’s onus, the Court stated “it should not be concluded that the accident would ordinarily not have occurred in the absence of negligence” (paras. 31-32).  Moreover, as previously noted, Marchuk held that despite its criticism of res ipsa loquitur, the Court in Fontaine had not actually modified the underlying principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence in determining liability for negligence.  Further, in Lemaire v. Ashabi et al, this Court upheld the trial judge’s decision finding negligence, a decision which referenced Fontaine, stating with respect to the trial judge’s finding of prima facie negligence that:

[7]        She first considered whether the prima facie inference of negligence could be drawn.  She cited (at para. 56) United Motors Service Inc. v. Hutson et al, [1937] S.C.R. 294, for the principle that:

… the fact that an operation is under the control of the defendant coupled with the fact that the accident is such that in the ordinary course of things it would not happen if those having the management use proper care, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence.

[23]          In this case, the trial judge held that he was unable to infer from the evidence that a breach of the standard of care had occurred.  In my view, the appellant’s argument that the standard was breached “because it is obvious that a rock that might foreseeably dislodge and pose a hazard did in fact get dislodged and injured [the appellant]” is a misinterpretation of the trial judge’s formulation of the standard of care.  Instead, the judge concluded that the fact that the rock came off the logging truck was not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the standard of care, as he had stated it, was breached.

[24]          The trial judge held that log haulers owed a duty of care to people such as the appellant, the standard of which was “that they must diligently perform a complete inspection of their vehicle and their load to identify and remove debris or any foreign matter that might foreseeably dislodge and pose a hazard to the person or property of any member of the public who might foreseeably be harmed by such debris falling from the vehicle or load.”  Having defined the standard of care in terms of a prudent inspection, the trial judge considered the evidence of how the rock had come off the truck to determine whether the rock ought to have been discovered by such an inspection.  He concluded that he was unable to determine where the rock had probably been located in the load, and accordingly, was unable to find that it probably would have been discovered by a proper inspection.  In other words, the possibilities of non-negligence (a prudent and diligent inspection in which the rock nevertheless eluded detection) and of negligence (no inspection or a negligent one) were equally consistent with the available evidence.

[25]          In my view, this case is analogous to the application of Fontaine in Hall v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 2005 BCCA 290 at para. 59, 40 B.C.L.R. (4th) 257: “[the appellant] did not establish aprima facie case of negligence which caused the accident.  Therefore the case never reached the point where [the respondent] was required to produce ‘evidence to the contrary.’”

[26]          The trial judge’s conclusion that the evidence was equally consistent with the possibility that the rock was “somewhere in the middle of the load but near the front, where it could have eluded detection without negligence” as with the possibility that it was somewhere it ought to have been discovered, is consistent with the trial judge having considered the question of whether the accident would ordinarily occur without negligence.  His conclusion was that the accident was equally as likely to have occurred without negligence as with it.

More on Rule 66, Rule 37B, ICBC Claims and Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 42 Comments on More on Rule 66, Rule 37B, ICBC Claims and Costs

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court dealing with 2 issues of interest to me, Costs consequences under Rule 66 and Rule 37B.
In today’s case (Schnare v. Roberts) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff sued for damages under Rule 66.  The Plaintiff made a formal offer of settlement and ICBC did not accept it.  The Plaintiff proceeded to trial and the verdict more than doubled the Plaintiff’s settlement offer.  (click here to read my previous post regarding the trial judgment).
Today’s judgment dealt with the costs consequences.  ICBC argued that the Plaintiff should be limited to costs under Rule 66 (which are capped at an amount less than regular Tariff costs under the BC Supreme Court Rules) because the lawsuit was brought initially under Rule 66.  Madam Justice Adair disagreed with ICBC’s submission and noted that since the trial went beyond the Rule 66 2 day limit that constituted ‘special circumstances’ which permitted the court to order costs outside of the Rule 66 costs.  Madam Justice Adair reasoned as follows:

[13]        Sub-rules (29) and (29.1) of Rule 66 provide (italics added):

(29)      Unless the court orders otherwise or the parties consent, and subject to Rule 57 (10), the amount of costs, exclusive of disbursements, to which a party is entitled is as follows:

(a)   if the time spent on the hearing of the trial is one day or less, $5 000;

(b)   if the time spent on the hearing of the trial is more than one day, $6 600.

(29.1)   In exercising its discretion under subrule (29), the court may consider a settlement offer delivered in accordance with Rule 37 or 37A whether or not other special circumstances exist.

Rules 37 and 37A have been repealed and replaced with Rule 37B.

[14]        In my view, Ms. Schnare’s case was not the type of case contemplated by Rule 66.  By October 2008, the parties themselves realized that two days would not be sufficient for trial.  Even a more generous estimate of three days turned out to be insufficient to deal with the evidence on the relevant issues in the case and with submissions (including submissions on the admissibility of documentary evidence).  Although court adjourned somewhat early in the afternoon on January 28, 2009, it sat late on January 29, 2009, to ensure that a witness’ evidence could be completed.  I did not consider counsel were inefficient in their use of time.  I am satisfied that the length of the trial itself constitutes “special circumstances” in this case.  See Kailey v. Kellner, 2008 BCSC 224, 56 C.P.C. (6th) 40, where, in comparable circumstances, Mr. Justice Parrett also found the length the trial constituted “special circumstances” justifying a departure from the fixed costs under Rule 66(29), and awarded costs on Scale B.

[15]        In my opinion, the appropriate order respecting costs (before considering matters under Rule 37B) was and is that the plaintiff should recover her costs on Scale B of Appendix B.

The second issue worth noting were the costs consequences under Rule 37B.  The Plaintiff argued that they should be awarded double costs from the date of their formal settlement offer onward.    Madam Justice agreed and engaged in the below analysis and in doing so made some critical comments about an expert physician (Dr. McPherson) who ‘was very closely tied to ICBC…for over a decade‘ in the defence of personal injury claims:

19]        Should the plaintiff’s January 26, 2009 offer have been accepted, and the costs of the trial avoided?  Analysis of this question is not to be based on hindsight once the final result is known, as noted in Bailey v. Jang, 2008 BCSC 1372, 63 C.P.C. (6th) 291, at para. 24.  Nevertheless, in my view, the defendants should have given that offer much more serious consideration when looking at the risks of going to trial. 

[20]        The defendants’ defence to Ms. Schnare’s claims for substantial damages rested primarily on the shoulders of their expert, Dr. McPherson, the only defence witness.  However, there were serious risks in that strategy.  Dr. McPherson was very closely tied to ICBC, and had been for over a decade.  This was not a secret, and had been the subject of media reports, which were used to cross-examine Dr. McPherson.  As counsel for the defendants must have appreciated, these ties made an issue of Dr. McPherson’s impartiality and credibility, and impaired his value as a expert.  Dr. McPherson’s evidence, unlike that of Dr. Van Rijn and Mr. McLean, did nothing to explain Ms. Schnare’s continuing symptoms and physical difficulties, and provided little assistance to the court.  His rejection of the possibility that there could be movement of Ms. Schnare’s sacroiliac joints led inevitably to his conclusion that her complaints could not be accident-related, and to speculate that Ms. Schnare possibly had a condition that Dr. McPherson conceded was extremely rare.  As I noted in my reasons, Dr. McPherson was unhelpfully dismissive of opinions other than his own.  In my view, the defendants’ reliance on Dr. McPherson’s opinions to defend against Ms. Schnare’s claims was unreasonable in face of the plaintiff’s eve-of-trial offer to settle.  The offer represented a very substantial discount from the amounts Ms. Schnare sought at trial.  A more reasonable assessment of the potential risk that Dr. McPherson’s opinions would be unpersuasive (as I found them) should have led the defendants to accept Ms. Schnare’s last offer, in which case the costs of the trial would have been avoided.  This factor supports the plaintiff.

[21]        The final damages awarded to Ms. Schnare were more than twice the amount of Ms. Schnare’s offer.  This factor also supports the plaintiff.

[22]        With respect to the relative financial circumstances of the parties, I consider this factor neutral.

[23]        Taking into account the underlying legislative policy behind Rule 37B, that Ms. Schnare’s offer represented a very substantial discount off her damage claims presented at trial and if accepted would have avoided the costs of the trial, and that the amount awarded was significantly more than the amount of Ms. Schnare’s offer, in my view it is appropriate to award the plaintiff double costs for steps taken after January 26, 2009.