Skip to main content

Tag: New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules

I'd Buy That For a Dollar – Rule 37B and Nuisance Settlement Offers

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on I'd Buy That For a Dollar – Rule 37B and Nuisance Settlement Offers


As readers of the blog know Rule 37B of the BC Supreme Court Rules has given the Court considerable discretion with respect to awarding parties costs when formal offers of settlement are beat at trial.  One pattern that is becoming clear under the new Rule is that token offers of settlement are not particularly effective in triggering meaningful costs consequences.  Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating this.
In today’s case (Skinner v. Fu) the Plaintiff was involved in a BC Car Crash and sued the other motorist.  The issue of fault was hotly contested by ICBC who argued that the Plaintiff was fully at fault for the accident and his injuries.  Mr. Justice Harvey of the BC Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim after a summary trial.
Having successfully defended the lawsuit ICBC (through the Defendant) applied for costs from the Plaintiff.  Prior to trial the Defendant made a formal offer to settle the claim for $1.  ICBC asked the Court to award them double costs.
Mr. Justice Harvey dismissed the motion for double costs.  In doing so he commented that a $1 offer in an ICBC Claim with contested liability is not a ‘reasonable offer’ which ought to trigger increased costs consequences for the losing party.  Specifically the Court held as follows:

[15] Liability was the central issue between the parties. The defendants, from the time the matter was first reported to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, took the position that no liability rested with the defendant driver despite his apparent breach of s. 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318.

[16] Immediately after the writ of summons was issued, the offer to settle the matter for $1 was forwarded to the plaintiff.

[17] Where, as in the case at bar, the central issue is liability, I do not consider an offer of $1 plus costs of filing the writ of summons an offer which ought reasonably be accepted, either on the date that the offer to settle was delivered or on any later date. Were it so, all defendants in similar positions would follow suit and, as a result, enhance their entitlement to costs without promoting the underlying objective of Rule 37B, which is to encourage reasonable settlement.  As a result, this offer to settle will have no effect on the order of costs in this case.

This is not the first case interpreting Rule 37B in this way (click here to read my previous posts discussing the Court’s application of Rule 37B in BC Injury Claims) and the pattern seems well established that nominal offers will rarely be effective for triggering meaningful costs consequences.

In my continued efforts to get prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I am cross referencing Civil Procedure cases that I discuss on this blog with the New Rules.  I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

More on Rule 37B and the Timing of Formal Settlement Offers, "All Inclusive" Offers Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 80 Comments on More on Rule 37B and the Timing of Formal Settlement Offers, "All Inclusive" Offers Discussed


One pattern that is becoming well developed under Rule 37B (the Rule dealing with Formal Settlement Offers in BC Supreme Court Lawsuits) is that of timing.  Caselaw seems to require that formal offers need to be available for acceptance for a reasonable period of time before triggering cost consequences under Rule 37B.  Reasons for judgement were released this week demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Dodge v. Shaw Cablesystems [SBC) Ltd.) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of a slip and fall.  As a result of the fall the Plaintiff injured her knee.  Before trial the Defendant made a formal offer for $50,000 on an “all-in” basis (meaning inclusive of all damages, costs and disbursements).  This offer was made two working days before the start of trial.
After trial, the Jury decided that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were equally at fault for the fall an awarded a net sum of $20,000 for her injuries.  The Defendant then brought a motion for costs under Rule 37B.  Mr. Justice Masuhara refused to award the Defendant any costs because the offer was not left open for consideration for a reasonable period of time.  In coming to this conclusion Mr. Justice Masuhara stated as follows with respect to timing of formal offers under Rule 37B:

I conclude that the defendant’s offer was in effect from Wednesday, January 7, 2009 to Friday, January 9, 2009.

[14] A party requires a reasonable time within which to consider an offer and decide in the circumstances existing at the time of the offer whether it should be accepted or rejected:Coquitlam (City) v. Crawford, 2008 BCSC 1507. There is case law on Rule 37B that suggests that a reasonable amount of time to consider an offer is seven days. In Arnold, Butler J. cited Bailey when he stated at para. 22 that “[a] reasonable period of time to consider an offer to settle is seven days”. In Towson v. Bergman, 2009 BCSC 978 at para. 70, Gray J. stated that the seven day period “has been applied in the case law.” I do not, however, read these cases as laying down a rule of general application. In Wright v. Hohenacker, 2009 BCSC 996, for example, Fisher J. did not consider a “seven day rule” when determining whether an offer should have been reasonably accepted, stating that, in the circumstances of that case, the fact that the offer was made only four days before trial was not particularly significant. Suffice it to say that every case must be judged on its own facts. Imposition of an inflexible rule as to what is considered a reasonable amount of time risks returning to the rigid consequences of the old Rule 37 and fettering the wide discretion intended under Rule 37B.

[15] In this case, the plaintiff was only given two days to consider accepting the offer before it expired. Apart from pointing out that the offer was made after mediation and after delivery of the defendant’s expert reports, neither party has led any evidence surrounding the circumstances at the time the offer was made. It is known, however, that the plaintiff was a resident of Ontario at the time, whereas her counsel was resident in Abbotsford. While this alone is not determinative (the plaintiff has not led any evidence of her whereabouts at the time of the offer), when an offer to settle is received, counsel and client are required to make a careful appraisal of the merits, taking into account complex and subjective factors in appraising the eventual outcome of a trial, in this case, a jury trial. Complexity is increased where the plaintiff is asked to evaluate an “all-in” offer where, by the very nature of the offer, the actual amount offered in discharge of the action is not immediately apparent.

[16] Taking into account that analysing the “all-in offer” would have required breaking out the appropriate cost consequences, and that plaintiff and counsel undoubtedly had many other things that required their attention, two days was an unreasonable amount of time in which to properly analyze the offer. Even if the offer did beat the result, counsel for the plaintiff did not have enough time to reach this conclusion within the deadline set by the defendant…

[18] Since I have decided that it was unreasonable for the defendant to expect that the plaintiff would accept the offer within two days, the policy underlying Rule 37B, which is to encourage the settlement of disputes by rewarding the party who makes a reasonable offer and penalizing the party who declines to accept such an offer, is not engaged. Accordingly, as permitted by Rule 37B(4), I decline to consider the defendant’s offer to settle in exercising my discretion relating to costs.

Another interesting point in this decision was the Court’s discussion of “all-inclusive” offers under Rule 37B.  Under the now repealed Rule 37 such offers were not allowed and could not trigger costs consequences.  Mr. Justice Masuhara ruled that such a strict prohibition is not warranted under Rule 37B but parties should make such “all-in” offers at their own peril, Specifically the Court stated as follows:

24] Since the introduction of Rule 37B, there is no longer a complete code to dictate the cost consequences of an offer to settle. Rule 37B contemplates a summary procedure to determine costs. It offers broad discretion to the trial judge to determine cost consequences of a failure to settle. While the defendant is no longer automatically entitled to costs from the date of the offer if the offer is more favourable than the judgment, Rule 37B(5)(d) still states that the court may in such a case “award to the defendant the defendant’s costs in respect of all or some of the steps taken in the proceeding after the date of delivery of the offer to settle.” While I accept that the consequences of an uncertainty in the calculation of costs up to the date of the offer to settle are no longer as stringent, as under the old Rules, the court is still faced with difficulty in summarily determining the relationship between the offer and the costs in an “all-in” offer. Consequently, the potential for injustice still exists. Thus, under Rule 37B, it does not appear to me that the rationale for the rule in Helm is no longer of assistance. In my view the language of Rule 37B is broad and assumes that the trial judge in every case is in the best position to determine whether an “all-in” offer can be considered. Provided that the proper form of an offer to settle is adhered to, the court has under Rule 37B the discretion to take into account that offer to settle. Nonetheless, defendants who make an “all-in” offer do so at their own peril.

In my continued efforts to get prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I am cross referencing Civil Procedure cases that I discuss on this blog with the New Rules.  To this end  it is worth pointing out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

Rule 68 Denied for Historic Personal Injury Case

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on Rule 68 Denied for Historic Personal Injury Case

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, deciding whether a case that was filed before Rule 68 applied could later be brought into the scope of the Rule.
In today’s case (Sahota v. Sandulo) the Plaintiff sued as a result of personal injuries from a BC Car Crash.  The case was filed in New Westminster in 2005, a time when Rule 68 did not apply to that Court Registry.  The matter was set for Jury Trial.  As trial neared the Plaintiff brought an application to move the case into Rule 68 which would have a number of implications including getting rid of the defendants right to have the matter heard by a Jury.
Mr. Justice Holmes dismissed the application holding that “where an action is commenced before the introduction of Rule 68, the Court has no jurisdiction to make an order bringing the action within the Rule over the objection of one of the parties” In reaching this conclusion he agreed with the reasoning of Mr. Justice Macaulay in a case called Servos v. ICBC where the Court held as follows:

9          The plaintiff argues that any existing proceeding, regardless of the stage it is at, can be transferred into the pilot project if the parties consent.  In written argument, he says that the rule is silent on whether the court may order the transfer in the absence of consent and that, accordingly, the court has “the discretion to make any order, which it considers the circumstances require, particularly where it tends to prevent the misuse of the process”.  He does not suggest that the defendant is misusing the process in withholding consent in this case.  The plaintiff relies on Bell v. Wood, [1927] 1 W.W.R. 580 (B.C.S.C.), considered in MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Galiano Conservancy Assn., [1994] B.C.J. No. 2477 (C.A.), for the proposition set out above.

10        With respect, I do not agree that the principle set out applies here.  In Bell, the court addressed its discretion to make orders regarding procedure as the circumstances may require “when the Rules are silent on the subject and especially when it tends to prevent misuse of the process” at (para. 6).  The particular question was whether an affidavit could be filed on an application for trial by jury when the rules were silent on the question.  MacMillan Bloedel addressed the court’s jurisdiction to permit the continuation of an examination for discovery on the issue of whether special costs should be ordered against a plaintiff that applied to discontinue the action five weeks before trial.

11        I read those decisions as affirming the court’s inherent jurisdiction to craft procedural rules when necessary because the rules do not anticipate the particular problem, but not as anything more.  Once a statute covers a matter, it is well understood that inherent jurisdiction cannot be relied on except to fill a functional gap or vacuum:  Unity Insurance Brokers (Windsor) Ltd. v. Unity Realty & Insurance Inc., [2005] O.J. No. 1069, 251 D.L.R. (4th) 368 (Ont. Div. Ct.).  It represents the reserve or fund of powers which the court may draw on as necessary when it is just or equitable to do so, but it is not unlimited and cannot be exercised contrary to any statutory provision. See Glover v. Minister of National Revenue (1980), 29 O.R. (2d) 392, 113 D.L.R. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), aff’d [1981] 2 S.C.R. 561.

12        There is no gap in the present circumstances.  Rule 68 expressly requires the consent of the defendant.  It follows that my inherent jurisdiction does not extend to overriding the defendant’s lack of consent and directing the transfer of the proceeding into the pilot project.

This case will be a relatively short lived precedent, however, as Rule 68 is coming to an end as of July 1, 2010.  (Click here to read my previous post discussing Rule 68’s replacement with the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rule 15).

The New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules – a More Detailed Look

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 118 Comments on The New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules – a More Detailed Look

Due in part to my recent articles on the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I had the opportunity to lead a discussion on the new rules this weekend before a group of distinguished BC Personal Injury Lawyers at the Westin Bayshore Hotel.
Afterwards several lawyers in the audience approached me for a written summary of my presentation.  Not having one handy I determined this would be as good a place as any to produce a written summary so here goes:
Introduction:
As many of you know the BC Supreme Court Rules have been overhauled.  The New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules come into force on July 1, 2010 so anyone with a BC Civil Practice needs to quickly get up to speed on these Rule Changes.
The good news for those of you not familiar with the New Rules is that they are largely “new” in name only.  More than anything else the “new” rules are simply the current rules renumbered and reorganized in what is supposed to be a more user friendly fashion.  About 95% of the current rules are left intact under the new system with the exact or almost exact language in place.
This is good news for lawyers familiar with the current system as many of the precedents we are familiar with interpreting and applying the current Civil Rules will continue to be of use under the new system.
Proportionality:
There is, however, one important exception to the overall similarities and that is that the “object” of the New Rules has changed.  Under the new system the object will be “securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits, including, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to the amount involved in the proceeding, the importance of the issues in dispute and the complexity of the proceeding”
Since the New Rules will be subject to this overall concept of “proportionality” there is room for some new direction in the interpretation and application of the rules which have been reproduced word for word from their current form.
Although the new rules are largely the same as the current ones there are a few substantive changes that are worth highlighting.
Starting a Civil Action:
The first thing worth noting is that the Writ of Summons and the Appearance to a Writ of Summons have been abolished.  To start a claim under the new system you file a “Notice of Civil Claim” and to respond to this you file a “Response to a Civil Claim“.   These are nothing more than the Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence that we have under the current system.
When the new rules were being debated there was some discussion in shortening the amount of time a party had to serve a Notice of Civil Claim once filed.  Fortunately this change did not make its way into the final draft and litigants will still have one year within which to serve the Notice after filing.  This time period often comes in handy in the prosecution of personal injury claims with an unknown prognosis.
Changes to the Discovery Process:
Once the lawsuit is started the New Rules have made some changes to the Discovery Process, with respect to Discovery of Parties, Documents and Witnesses.
Discovery of Documents:
The “Demand for Discovery of Documents” has been abolished.  Instead, all parties to a civil action will have an automatic obligation to make discovery of documents within 35 days at the end of the “pleading period“.  Rule 7-1(9) creates a continuing obligation on parties to ensure that their list is up to date.  Failure to do so may prevent a party from putting documents into evidence (Rule 7-1(21)).
If a party is dissatisfied with the disclosure they have received they can make an application for a supplementary list of documents as set out in Rule 7-1(11).
Significantly, the test for what documents are discoverable has been altered.  Under the current system parties must disclose documents “relating to every matter in question in the action“.  Under the new rules this test has been changed to “all documents that are or have been in a parties possession or control that could be used by any party to prove or disprove a material fact” and “all other documents to which a party intends to refer at trial“.
This new test is supposed to be narrower in scope than the current one.  Time will tell how this new test will change disclosure requirements in the prosecution of personal injury actions however, given the fact that this new test will be applied alongside principles of proportionality there very well may be narrower disclosure requirements in smaller personal injury claims and greater obligations in the prosecution of more serious claims.
Examinations for Discovery:
Moving on to Examinations for Discovery a few noteworthy changes have been made.  Under the current system there is no time limit to the length of discoveries.  If faced with an uncooperative party or a long-winded lawyer these can go on for days and days.  This has been changed under the new system with a 7 hour cap on examinations for discovery.  This cap can be lifted with the consent of the parties or with Court order.    Rule 7-2(3) sets out the factors the Court can consider when deciding whether to permit a longer discovery.  These factors are worth reviewing and include the conduct of the party and the conduct of the examining lawyer
An important examination for discovery loophole has also been plugged.  Oftentimes questions asked at discovery are answered after the fact by letter further to “requests” made at discovery.  Unfortunately the current rules do not provide any mechanism for the admissibility of such evidence at trial.   While such evidence would normally go in without incident one could not be guaranteed such an outcome if faced with an uncooperative opposing lawyer. This has been remedied under Rule 7-2(23) of the New Rules which holds that answers made to discovery requests by follow up letter are deemed to be questions and answers given under oath at the examination for discovery.  This change will give counsel more confidence that they can use admissions made further to requests to advance their case or damage their opponents at trial.
Interrogatories:
Interrogatories are as good as dead under the New Rules.  While they still exist Rule 7-3(1) does not permit their use except with consent or with court order.  This is welcome news with respect to personal injury claims as some defence lawyers oppressively use interrogatories in an attempt to get discovery of information multiple times.
Discovery of Witnesses:
The current system does little to assist litigants in determining which lay witnesses their opponents will bring to trial.  This has been changed under the new rules and the Court will have greater powers to compel such disclosure.
Parties to civil actions will be able to request “Case Planning Conferences” and “Trial Management Conferences” (I discuss these at greater length below).
The court has the power to order disclosure of witness information at these conferences.  Specifically under Rule  5-3(j) the court can make an order with respect to “witness lists” at a Case Planning Conference.  Even if no such order is made parties will need to disclose names and addresses of all lay witnesses they will rely on at least 28 days before trial as set out in Rule 7-4(1).
At Trial Management Conferences Courts can go further and have the power to order “will say” summaries of lay witness evidence as set out in Rule 12-2(g).  Time will tell how often such orders are made but given the fact that one of the well established purposes of the Rules is to avoid trial by ambush I imagine such orders will be made routinely in personal injury claims.
Expert Witnesses:
One of the biggest changes under the new rules is that relating to expert opinion evidence.  I have written about this before and you can click here to read my previous summary of these important changes.
Fast Track Litigation:
Another significant change is that relating to fast track litigation.  I have previously written about these changes and you can read my previous article by clicking here.
CPC’s and TMC’s:
As mentioned above the new rules have introduced Case Planning Conferences and Trial Management Conferences.  These give the Court greater control and power over an action earlier in the litigation process and the Rules discussing these conferences are worth reviewing.
Briefly any party to a civil action may request a Case Planning Conference once the Pleading Period expires.  The court can also order such a conference on its own motion.  Once set the litigants will need to filed a Case Plan Proposal which will include plans for discovery of documents, examinations for discovery, dispute resolution, expert evidence, witness lists and trial estimates and intended mode of trial.  Affidavits will not be permitted at CPC’s and instead the court orders will be based on submissions of the parties (or their counsel).  Rule 5-3 sets out the orders a Court can make at a CPC.
Originally it was proposed that parties would have to personally attend CPC’s.  Fortunately this requirement did not make its way into the final draft and parties are permitted to attend via counsel as set out in Rule 5-2(2).
Trial Management Conferences (TMC’s) will be required in all actions.  These must be held at least 4 weeks before trial and “if practicable conducted by the judge who will preside at trial”.  This is a welcome requirement as under the current system litigants rarely know who their judge will be until a day or two before trial.  Knowing who your judge will likely be ahead of time will assist in preparing your trial in accordance with such a  judge’s preferences and it will certainly be a welcome change for the judge to know something about the case a month or more before trial.
Rule 12-2(9) sets out the orders that Judges can make at TMC’s and these are worth reviewing.
At first read it appears that parties must personally attend TMC’s although Rule 12-2(5) sets out an exception permitting a lawyer to appear provided that the party “is readily available for consultation during the TMC, either in person or by telephone“.
Transition:
Part 24 of the new Rules states that proceedings started under the current Supreme Court Rules will be “deemed to be a proceeding started under these Supreme Court Civil Rules‘ meaning that every current BC Supreme Court civil lawsuit that is not disposed of before July 1, 2010 will be under the force of the new rules at that time.
There is a bit of leeway built into the transition process as Rule 24-1(14) states that “If a step in a proceeding is taken before July 1, 2010, the former Supreme Court Rules apply to any any right or obligation arising out of or relating to that step if and to the extent that that right or obligation is to have effect before September 1, 2010.”    This is very little leeway however and the new Rules will be in effect by July with no exceptions after September so now is the time for all of us to start getting up to speed.

More on BC Injury Claims and Mode of Trial

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Jury Trials, Uncategorized. 52 Comments on More on BC Injury Claims and Mode of Trial

Further to my previous post about parties flip-flopping on their choice to have a Trial by Jury in a BC Injury Claim reasons for judgement were released today considering the issue of “whether or not a party who has taken the necessary two steps to require a trial by jury…can change that mode of election before the trial commences“.
In today’s case (Iskum v. Badali) the Plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle collisions.  The Plaintiff sued and both cases were set for trial.  The defence lawyers in each lawsuit filed Jury Notices within the time frames required.    The Defendants paid the Jury fees as required by the Rules of Court.  Late in the litigation new defence lawyers were appointed and 10 days before trial they told the Plaintiff’s lawyer that they intended to have this matter tried before a judge without a jury.  The Plaintiff objected arguing that it was too late for the defendant to change their mind.
Madam Justice Griffin agreed with the Plaintiff and reasoned as follows:

[10] Here, the plaintiff did not exercise any right to trial by jury.  The plaintiff simply did not contest the defendants’ election of trial by jury.

[11] Thus, the issue before me does not have to do so much with a party’s right to a jury trial, rather, it has to do with a party’s right to know the mode of trial no later than 30 days before trial.  The issue properly framed is whether or not a party who has taken the necessary two steps to require trial by jury, as set out in Rule 39(26), can later change that mode of election before the trial commences…

[30] I find that by taking the two steps set out in Rule 39(26), the defendants “required a jury,” and therefore the payment of the subsequent fees is mandatory pursuant to s. 17 of theJury Act.

[31] The defendants suggest that having paid the first set of fees, they can decide to not pay the second set of fees simply by giving notice to the sheriff that they no longer require a trial by jury.  They suggest that s. 19 indicates that the trial judge has discretion to allow this.

[32] I find that s. 19 of the Jury Act does not give a party who has elected trial by jury the right to simply give notice that it will not pay the jury fees required on a daily basis and thereby unilaterally un-elect the mode of trial by jury.  Rather, the payment of those fees is mandatory and only if they are not paid will the sheriff bring this to the attention of the court to make such order as the court considers just.  This preserves the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, but does not confer a procedural right on a party to simply “un-elect” trial by jury by not paying subsequent fees.

[33] Here, the defendants attempted to unilaterally un-elect trial by jury within 10 days of the trial starting by simply advising the sheriff and the other side that they no longer wished to proceed by trial by jury.  I conclude that the Rules of Court do not allow for such a re-election within 30 days before trial.  I find that the defendants had no authority to do so under theRules of Court.

[34] It is clear that the Rules of Court do not allow for a party to elect trial by jury late in the process.  This election must be made within strict time limits set out in Rule 39(26).

[35] The mode of trial is very relevant to how the parties will prepare for trial and is also relevant to settlement discussions before trial.  The Rules of Court as a whole recognize that it is not efficient to conduct civil trials by ambush.  Civil trials are more efficient and settlement is more likely if parties have advance notice of not just the case they have to meet, but the mode of trial.  The 30-day notice period in Rule 39(26) is there to provide parties with some certainty as to the mode of trial with a goal of efficient resolution of disputes.

[36] As noted by Mr. Justice Taylor of our Court of Appeal in Hoare v. Firestone Canada Inc. (1989), 42 B.C.L.R. (2d) 237 at 241:

The learned judge very properly emphasized the importance of the right to elect for jury trial.  But on a broad consideration of the rules and authorities which has been possible in these appeal proceedings I have concluded that the election is intended to be made once only, at a particular stage, and for good reason.  If the trial may be before judge and jury, rather than judge alone, that is generally an important consideration for both parties in preparation of the case and perhaps, indeed, in the selection of counsel.  It is, I think, for these reasons that the rules require the election to be made, once for all, soon after the action is set down, instead of leaving the parties free to elect thereafter on the basis of later developments.

[37] As a matter of common sense and in light of the clear purpose of the Rules of Court to avoid trial by ambush, the time limits imposed on the mode of selection of trial apply whether the mode of trial is by jury or is by judge alone.  I conclude that were it intended to be otherwise, there would be an express provision in the Rules of Court, pursuant to which a party could unilaterally elect to proceed by judge alone, despite having elected trial by jury by meeting the requirements of Rule 39(26) at least 30 days before trial.  There is no such provision.

[38] Rather, once the election has been made and has crystallized by the taking of the two steps set out in Rule 39(26) at least 30 days prior to trial, the only basis for a party to set aside the election of trial by jury is pursuant to Rule 39(27) on the basis that the case is unsuitable for trial by jury.

[39] On its face, Rule 39(27) would seem to apply only to the party who has received the jury notice.  However Rule 35(4) provides that the court, on its own motion or on the motion of any party, may order that the trial proceed without a jury on any of the grounds set out in Rule 39(27).  In this regard, see Robitaille v. Vancouver Hockey Club Ltd. (1979), 12 B.C.L.R. 335 (S.C.), aff’d 14 B.C.L.R. 377 (C.A.).

[40] This brings me back to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in Molnar.  I conclude that having elected trial by jury, the defendants must proceed with a jury unless they can discharge the onus of proving that this matter is not suitable for a jury on the grounds set out in Rule 39(27).

[41] Here, the defendants did not apply at this pre-trial conference to set aside the jury notice, and advanced no argument based on the grounds set out in Rule 39(27).  It is clear that the defendants simply asserted that they had a right to re-elect trial by judge alone at any time prior to the start of trial.  I have found that the Rules of Court do not permit this.

This is the first case that I am aware of dealing with these specific facts making this case a useful precedent.  Now the question is will this precedent continue to be useful once the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules come into force?

The answer appears to be yes.  This case turned on the Court’s interpretation and application of Rule 39(26).  This rule is replaced in the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules at Rule 12-6(3) which is almost identical to the current rule in its language and requirements (there are some minor changes in the timelines involved but otherwise the rules appear identical).  If a party wants to change their minds after filing a Jury Notice they better do so before paying the Jury Fees otherwise it appears to be too late.

To read my other posts cross referencing the current Rules with the New BC Supreme Court Rules simply click here or on the New BC Supreme Court Rules tag below.

Even More on Costs and "Sufficient Reason" to Sue in the BC Supreme Court

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

Further to my previous posts on this topic, reasons for judgement were released today considering whether to award a Plaintiff Supreme Court Costs in an ICBC Claim where the judgement amount was within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.
In today’s case (Mohamadi v. Tremblay) the Plaintiff was awarded $10,490 in his ICBC Claim after trial (click here to read my summary of the trial judgment).
The Plaintiff brought an application to be awarded ‘costs’ under Rule 57(10) which reads as follows:
A plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act is not entitled to costs, other than disbursements, unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court and so orders.
ICBC opposed this application.  Mr. Justice Truscott set out the leading test in applying Rule 57(10) from the BC Court of Appeal (Reimann v. Aziz) where the BC high court held that “Considering Rule 57(10) in its legislative context and applying its words in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the legislation and its objects, I conclude that a plaintiff does not have an ongoing obligation to assess the quantum of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.”
Mr. Justice Truscott held that this Plaintiff did not have “sufficient reason for bringing” his lawsuit in the Supreme Court.  He summarized the key reasons behind his conclusion as follows:

[58] I recognize that most plaintiffs with personal injury claims probably feel more comfortable with counsel representing them and more confident that they will obtain a greater amount of damages for their claim with the assistance of counsel than by acting on their own in Small Claims Court.

[59] However, the onus to prove that at the beginning of the claim there is sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in Supreme Court, as Rule 57(10) states, lies in practice to some great extent on plaintiff’s counsel who is advising the plaintiff on the value of his claim and commencing the action.

[60] Here, I am satisfied that if Dr. Fox’s medical records pre-accident had been obtained and if his opinions and the opinions of Dr. Cameron had been obtained before the writ of summons was issued, with the plaintiff’s credibility at issue with respect to the injuries he was alleging that were not supported by his doctors, with his false statement to ICBC, and with the contrary evidence of his employer, it could and should easily have been determined that the action should be commenced in Small Claims Court and not this Court.

In my continued exercise to get used to the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules, I am cross referencing all civil procedure cases I write about with the new rules.   The Current Rule 57(10) will become Rule 14-1(10) and it reads identically to the current rule so the precedents developed under Rule 57(10) regarding costs should continue to assist litigants after July 1, 2010.

Joining 2 Separate ICBC Claims for Trial at the Same Time

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 123 Comments on Joining 2 Separate ICBC Claims for Trial at the Same Time

If you are involved in 2 separate car accidents and start 2 separate Injury Claims in the BC Supreme Court is it possible to have the trials heard at the same time?
The answer is yes and such applications are governed by BC Supreme Court Rule 5(8) which states that “proceedings may be consolidated at any time by order of the court or may be ordered to be tried at the same time or on the same day“.
Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court (Miclash v. Yan) considering an application under Rule 5(8).  In granting the Plaintiff’s request to have multiple claims heard at the same time Master Keighley concisely set out the principles to be considered in these applications.  The Court summarized the law as follows:

[15] The application is brought pursuant to Rule 5(8) of the Rules of Court…

[16] The order sought is discretionary.

[17] Exercise of this discretion is governed by the principles set out in the decision of Master Kirkpatrick, as she then was, in the case of Merritt v. Imasco Enterprises Inc. (1992), 2 C.P.C. (3d) 275 at para. 18 and 19:

18.       None of the submissions of counsel address the real issue to be determined. That is, are the issues raised by the pleadings sufficiently similar to warrant the order sought and will the order make sense in the circumstances? An application to have actions tried at the same time thus requires an examination of circumstances which may be of a more general nature than is made under R. 27 or 19.

19.       I accept that the foundation of an application under R. 5(8) is, indeed, disclosed by the pleadings. The examination of the pleadings will answer the first question to be addressed: do common claims, disputes and relationships exist between the parties? But the next question which one must ask is: are they “so interwoven as to make separate trials at different times before different judges undesirable and fraught with problems and economic expense”? Webster v. Webster (1979), 12 B.C.L.R. 172 at 182, 10 R.F.L. (2d) 148, 101 D.L.R. (3d) 248 (C.A.). That second question cannot, in my respectful view, be determined solely by reference to the pleadings. Reference must also be made to matters disclosed outside the pleadings:

(1)        Will the order sought create a saving in pre-trial procedures, (in particular, pre-trial conferences)?;

(2)        Will there be a real reduction in the number of trial days taken up by the trials being heard at the same time?;

(3)        What is the potential for a party to be seriously inconvenienced by being required to attend a trial in which that party may have only a marginal interest?; and

(4)        Will there be a real saving in experts’ time and witness fees?

This is in no way intended to be an exhaustive list. It merely sets out some of the factors which, it seems to me, ought to be weighed before making an order under R. 5(8).

[18] To these considerations, Master Joyce, as he then was, added two more in the case of Shah v. Bakken, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2836, 20 B.C.L.R. (3d) 393, at para. 15:

Other factors which in my view can be added to the foregoing list are:

(5)  Is one of the actions at a more advanced stage than the other? See: Forestral Automation Ltd. v. RMS Industrial Controls Inc. et al. (No.2), unreported, March 6, 1978, No. C765633/76, Vancouver (B.C.S.C.).

(6)  Will the order result a delay of the trial of one of the actions and, if so, does any prejudice which a party may suffer as a result of that delay outweigh the potential benefits which a combined trial might otherwise have?

In my continued effort to cross reference civil procedure cases with the new BC Supreme Court Rules which will take effect on July 1, 2010 Rule 5(8) is replicated in full under the New Rules and can be found at Rule 22-5(8).  Accordingly, the principles set out above will likely continue to be useful in considering similar applications once the new rules come into force.

The New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Admissibility of Expert Reports

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 109 Comments on The New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Admissibility of Expert Reports

One of the biggest changes in the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules (click here and here to read my previous posts on these rules) are those with respect to the requirements for admissibility of expert reports.  These changes are significant for ICBC and other Personal Injury Lawyers because these types of lawsuits are heavily dependent on expert opinion evidence.  From medical doctors to engineers to vocational specialists, personal injury trials are perhaps more reliant on expert evidence than any other type of trial.
One thing we should all keep in mind is that as of July 1, 2010 ongoing lawsuits will be deemed to be started under the new rules.  This means that any report ordered now that will be used in trial after July 1, 2010 will have to comply with the new rules.  For this reason it is vital that lawyers and expert witnesses alike become immediately familiar with the new Civil Rules.
Under the current Supreme Court Rules expert evidence requirements are governed by Rule 40-A.  These are rather modest.  Rule 40A(2) requires that expert reports be exchanged “to every party of record at least 60 days before the statement is tendered in evidence” and Rule 40A(5) requires that the reports set out “the qualifications of the expert, the facts and assumptions on which the opinion is based, and the name of the person primarily responsible for the content of the statement”
Under the new BC Civil Rules requirements of expert reports are set out in Rule 11-6.  Below I reproduce Rule 11-6 in its entirety.  On review it is clear that the new rule has significant changes compared to the current Rule 40A.
One of the most obvious changes is the time when expert evidence needs to be exchanged.  Currently reports need to be exchanged 60 days before they are put into evidence.  The new rule requires reports to be exchanged at least 84 days ‘before the scheduled trial date‘ and goes on to create a second category of reports called “responding reports” which need to be served “at least 42 days before the scheduled trial date”
The other significant change relates to requirements for admissibility.    Rule 11-6(1) requires experts to be much more clear and detailed about how they arrived at their opinions as compared to the current Rule 40A.  Although, to be fair, these changes are really little more than a codification of the common law that has developed around Rule 40-A.
The new rule also improves on the disclosure obligations to opposing counsel.  Under the current rule opposing counsel is not entitled to review the experts working files and materials until the expert takes the stand.  This can lead to unnecessary delay and surprise at trial.  Under the new Rule 11-6(8) opposing parties are entitled to fulsome pre-trial disclosure of the experts materials which will let lawyers better prepare for cross examination.
Other parts of Rule 11 contain interesting provisions about court appointed experts, joint experts and the role of the expert in the lawsuit.  I hope to write about these shortly.  Overall these improvements will likely be for the better, however, lawyers and doctors can be stubborn and it may take some adjustment for all of us to get used to these changes.
RULE 11-6 – EXPERT REPORTS
Requirements for report
(1) An expert’s report that is to be tendered as evidence at the trial must be signed by the expert, must include the certification required under Rule 11-2 (2) and must set out the following:
(a) the expert’s name, address and area of expertise;
(b) the expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experience in his or her area of expertise;
(c) the instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding;
(d) the nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates;
(e) the expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, if there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range;
(f) the expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including
(i) a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
(ii) a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
(iii) a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
Proof of qualifications
(2) The assertion of qualifications of an expert is evidence of them.
Service of report
(3) Unless the court otherwise orders, at least 84 days before the scheduled trial date, an expert’s report, other than the report of an expert appointed by the court under Rule 11-5, must be served on every party of record, along with written notice that the report is being served under this rule,
(a) by the party who intends, with leave of the court under Rule 11-3 (9) or otherwise, to tender the expert’s report at trial, or
(b) if 2 or more parties jointly appointed the expert, by each party who intends to tender the expert’s report at trial.
Service of responding report
(4) Unless the court otherwise orders, if a party intends to tender an expert’s report at trial to respond to an expert witness whose report is served under subrule (3), the party must serve on every party of record, at least 42 days before the scheduled trial date,
(a) the responding report, and
(b) notice that the responding report is being served under this rule.
Supplementary report of joint or court-appointed expert
(5) If, after an expert’s report is served under subrule (3) (b), the expert’s opinion changes in a material way,
(a) the expert must, as soon as practicable, prepare a supplementary report and ensure that that supplementary report is provided to the party who served the report under subrule (3), and
(b) the party to whom the supplementary report is provided under paragraph (a) of this subrule must promptly serve that supplementary report on every other party of record.
Supplementary report of own expert
(6) If, after an expert’s report is served under subrule (3) (a) or (4), the expert’s opinion changes in a material way and the party who served the report intends to tender that expert’s report at trial despite the change,
(a) the expert must, as soon as practicable, prepare a supplementary report and ensure that that supplementary report is provided to the party, and
(b) the party must promptly serve that supplementary report on every other party of record.
Requirements for supplementary report
(7) A supplementary report under Rule 11-5 (11) or under subrule (5) (a) or (6) (a) of this
rule must
(a) be identified as a supplementary report,
(b) be signed by the expert,
(c) include the certification required under Rule 11-2 (2), and
(d) set out the change in the expert’s opinion and the reason for it.
Production of documents
(8) Unless the court otherwise orders, if a report of a party’s own expert appointed under Rule 11-3 (9) or 11-4 is served under this rule, the party who served the report must,
(a) promptly after being asked to do so by a party of record, serve on the requesting party whichever one or more of the following has been requested:
(i) any written statement or statements of facts on which the expert’s opinion is based;
(ii) a record of any independent observations made by the expert in relation to the report;
(iii) any data compiled by the expert in relation to the report;
(iv) the results of any test conducted by or for the expert, or of any inspection conducted by the expert, if the expert has relied on that test or inspection in forming his or her opinion, and
(b) if asked to do so by a party of record, make available to the requesting party for review and copying the contents of the expert’s file relating to the preparation of the opinion set out in the expert’s report,
(i) if the request is made within 14 days before the scheduled trial date, promptly after receipt of that request, or
(ii) in any other case, at least 14 days before the scheduled trial date.
Notice of trial date to expert
(9) The person who is required to serve the report or supplementary report of an expert under this rule must, promptly after the appointment of the expert or promptly after a trial date has been obtained, whichever is later, inform the expert of the scheduled trial date and that the expert may be required to attend at trial for cross-examination.
Notice of objection to expert opinion evidence
(10) A party who receives an expert report or supplementary report under this Part must, on the earlier of the date of the trial management conference and the date that is 21 days before the scheduled trial date, serve on every party of record a notice of any objection to the admissibility of the expert’s evidence that the party receiving the report or supplementary report intends to raise at trial.
When objection not permitted
(11) Unless the court otherwise orders, if reasonable notice of an objection could have been given under subrule (10), the objection must not be permitted at trial if that notice was not given.

More on BC Supreme Court Trials and Costs

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, Uncategorized.

I’ve previously posted that when a Plaintiff in a BC Supreme Court Lawsuit is awarded damages in the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction ($25,000 or less) the Plaintiff is usually not permitted to court ‘costs’.
This is so because Rule 57(10) of the Supreme Court Rules holds that:
A plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act is not entitled to costs, other than disbursements, unless the court finds that there is sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court and so orders.
Today, reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court dealing with this section and the issue of when there is ‘sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court.’
In today’s case (Munro v. Thompson) the Plaintiff was awarded just over $12,000 for injuries sustained in a 2006 BC Car Crash.  The Defendant was apparently insured by ICBC and subject to ICBC’s Low Velocity Impact Defence.
The Plaintiff brought application seeking court ‘costs’.  He argued as follows:

[7]             The plaintiff says that “sufficient reason” is to be considered as at the time of commencement of proceedings: Riemann v. Aziz [2009] BCCA 448.

[8]             He says that at the date of commencement of the action, he had in hand the reports of two medical experts.  The conclusion arising from those is that it was a moderate/severe whiplash injury impacting on his future vocational capabilities, indicating a loss of capacity claim.

[9]             In these circumstances, counsel for the plaintiff contends there was good reason to bring his action in this court as opposed to the Small Claims division of the Provincial Court.

The defence lawyer argued that the Plaintiff should be deprived of ‘costs’ because the Plaintiff only recovered half of what could have been awarded in Small Claims Court therefore the Plaintiff should have started the lawsuit there.
In accepting the Plaintiff’s position Mr. Justice Williams applied the law as follows:

[22]         In order to determine the merit of the plaintiff’s claim for costs, it is necessary to examine whether he has shown that there was sufficient reason to have justified the decision to commence the proceeding in the Supreme Court.

[23]         Both parties accept that to be the correct analysis.  As well, both agree that the point in time at which the assessment is to be made is when the action in initiated.

[24]         In this case, plaintiff’s counsel had in hand the reports of two medical practitioners when he commenced the proceeding.  The report of Dr. Paterson, a treating chiropractor, concluded that the plaintiff’s symptoms of neck pain and stiffness, headaches, left shoulder pain and weakness are the result of a Grade III whiplash (moderate/severe) that he sustained in his July 6, 2006 motor vehicle accident. …

[25] There was also a medical-legal opinion from Dr. Condon….

26] Based on those opinions, it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff’s counsel to conclude that the action should be commenced in the Supreme Court.  The evidence indicated the likelihood of a viable claim for loss of future earning capacity as well as a not-insignificant claim for general damages.  Taking that into account, I am not prepared to find that his decision to bring the claim as he did was improper:  he had sufficient reason to proceed as he did when the writ was filed….

32] In the result, there is no basis to find that he deliberately misrepresented his situation to the doctors.  I stand by my conclusion that there was sufficient reason for bringing this proceeding in the Supreme Court, and reject the argument that he should be disentitled to the benefit of that finding because of his own conduct.

On another note, I posted yesterday about the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules which come into force next year.   I have referenced these and it appears that the law as set out in Rule 57(10) of the current rules remains in place in the New Rules.  The relevant provision is set out in Rule 14-1(10) of the new Civil Rules.  The language there is identical to the current Rule 57(10) so precedents such as this case should remain good law after the new rules take effect.

The Times They Are A Changin' – Major Overhaul to BC Civil Rules As of July 1, 2010

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 50 Comments on The Times They Are A Changin' – Major Overhaul to BC Civil Rules As of July 1, 2010

There are major changes coming to the landscape of Civil Litigation in the BC Supreme Court in the coming year.  Today, the BC Government issued a press release advising of a complete overhaul of the BC Supreme Court rules effective July 1, 2010.
These new civil rules have been the source of much controversy since the proposed changes were first announced.
Whatever side of the debate you were on these new rules appear to now be a reality and all lawyers (or people who will represent themselves in the BC Supreme Court) have just under one year to get up to speed.  In fact, Part 24 of the new Rules states that proceedings started under the current Supreme Court Rules will be “deemed to be a proceeding started under these Supreme Court Civil Rules‘ meaning that every current BC Supreme Court civil lawsuit that is not disposed of before July 1, 2010 will be under the force of the new rules at that time.
You can click here to access a copy of the new Civil Rules.
As the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules were just released today in their final form I will need some time to review them to see what changes they contain with respect to the way ICBC Claims and Personal Injury Claims are prosecuted in the BC Supreme Court.  Over the course of the next year I hope to write extensively about these new rules and the way they will affect personal injury litigation.  In the meantime, according the the BC Government’s Press Release, some of the highlights of these new rules are as follows:

Under the new civil and family rules, the Province will provide up to three days of trial time before litigants are required to pay court fees. Current fees start at $156 for a half day or less. To encourage the use of mediation, court fees for filing or responding to a legal claim will be eliminated for parties that engage in mediation prior to commencing a civil action.

Additional reforms include changes to rules used by B.C.’s civil courts to speed up, simplify and lower the cost of resolving disputes. These include:

· Containing legal processes so that they are proportionate to the value, importance and complexity of the case.

· Allowing parties the option of having a judge set time limits on litigation events.

· Providing a new fast track process that greatly simplifies procedures when the amount in dispute is $100,000 or less or when the case can be tried in three days or less.

· Providing new family rules for minimizing family conflict, promoting co-operation and ensuring that the interests of children are paramount.