Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for chronic pain and anxiety following a vehicle collision.
In the course of the claim ICBC’s expert witness whose opinion was “predicated on inaccurate and critical factual assumptions” was rejected.
In the recent case (Nadeau v. Toulmin) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2016 collision. The crash resulted in chronic pain and anxiety. In the course of litigation ICBC retained a physician who provided opinion evidence minimizing the plaintiff’s injuries and their connection to the collision. In finding that the court was “unable to give his opinions any weight” the following critical reasons were provided by Mr. Justice Walker: