Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering whether a claim involving psychological injury was too complex for a jury trial.
In today’s case (Lee v. Averbach) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions and sued for damages. The Defendants elected trial by jury. The Plaintiff argued given the medical evidence the claim was too complex for a jury trial. The court disagreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to strike the jury notice. In doing so Master Elwood provided the following reasons:
In British Columbia many legal claims are subject to a two year limitation period. Once a lawsuit is started in the BC Supreme Court a Plaintiff has a year to serve the claim on the Defendants being sued. This period, totalling potentially three years, is considered when adding new parties to an existing lawsuit as demonstrated in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.
In today’s case (Jamal v. Young) the Plaintiff was involved in a series of collisions and sued for damages. The Plaintiff sought to add more parties to one of the claims beyond the expiration of the two year limitation period. The application was opposed with the Defendants arguing the passage of time and limitation period was prejudicial. The Court granted the application noting the relevant period to consider prejudice in these circumstances is three years. Master Elwood provided the following useful summary of the law:
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing an ICBC application to lengthen the applicable time frame to file a jury notice.
In today’s case (Chapman-Fluker v. Gustavson) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. The Defendants, insured by ICBC and initially represented by in house counsel, failed to file a jury notice in the applicable time frame.
Months before trial the Defendants applied to allow them to file their jury notice beyond the specified time limits.