Tag: Rule 9-1(5)

ICBC Denied Double Costs Despite Significantly Besting Formal Settlement Offer

(Update February 9, 2012 – the below decision is under appeal with the BCCA granting leave to appeal on February 9, 2012)

Last year highly publicized reasons for judgement were released assessing damages at $5.9 million for a lawyer who sustained a traumatic brain injury during a dance floor incident.   Despite the headline making award, only a fraction of the damages were recoverable due to the limits of the responsible insurer.  In what may be the final chapter of this long legal saga, reasons for judgement were released addressing costs.
As was widely reported, the Plaintiff was injured in a dance floor incident and successfully sued another lawyer that knocked her down causing her brain injury.  The reason why ICBC played a role is because the Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent car crash.  She sued the motorist for damages claiming the crash aggravated her brain injury.  Prior to trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer of $500,000.  The Plaintiff countered at $1.9 million.   Ultimately her allegations that the crash aggravated the brain injury were rejected and damages of just over $10,000 were awarded for the car crash.
ICBC asked the the Court to award them double costs under Rule 9-1.  Despite ICBC’s success in relation to their formal settlement offer and despite concerns about aspects of the Plaintiff’s trial testimony, Mr. Justice Kelleher declined to award ICBC double costs.  In today’s case (Danicek v. Li) the Court provided the following reasons:
[38] Considering all the factors, I conclude that there should be no award of double costs.  The plaintiff suffered, I found, career ending injuries.  I cannot say it was unreasonable to decline the offer.  Although I considered Ms. Danicek to be less than candid, I conclude on a consideration of all factors that no double costs award should be made.
Despite this, the Court did go on to award Costs and Disbursements at Scale C (the highest scale).  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Kelleher provided the following Reasons:

[40] Counsel agree that the relevant factors for determining whether Scale C costs should be awarded include:

–       the length of trial;

–       the complexity of issues involved;

–       the number and the complexity of pre-trial applications;

–       whether the action was hard fought with little conceded;

–       the number and length of examinations for discovery;

–       the number and complexity of expert reports; and

–       the extent of the effort required in the collection and proof of facts.

See: Mort v. Saanich School Board, 2001 BCSC 1473 at para. 6; 566935 B.C. Ltd. v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada, 2005 BCSC 3032 at para. 7.

[41] Based on these criteria, there will be an award at Scale C.

[42] The trial was 29 days.  A central issue was whether the plaintiff’s symptoms would have resolved but for the motor vehicle accident.  There were reports and/or testimony from physiatrists, neurologists, psychiatrists and others.  The plaintiff alone relied on 21 expert reports.

[43] The action was complex. There were some seven parties involved. The plaintiff was examined for discovery on eleven occasions over several years. There were a number of applications both prior to and during the trial.  This case bears similarity to Graham v. Marek, 2002 BCSC 214; Ramcharitar v. Gill, 2007 BCSC 1268; and Mosher v. Sedens Estate, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2822.

[44] I have considered Hussack v. School District No. 33 (Chilliwack), 2010 BCSC 304, and Radke, when costs at Scale B were awarded.

[45] Hussack was a 23-day trial.  However, the liability issue was not complex; there were only four pre-trial applications and none was complicated.  The examination for discovery of the plaintiff was one full day and three half days.  There was one plaintiff and one defendant.

[46] In Radke, Madam Justice Boyd cited these circumstances in concluding that the matter was not a matter of “more than ordinary difficulty” (at para. 26):

[26]      The one circumstance which I agree made this case somewhat unusual was the fact that the defendant apparently took a very heavy interest in this case, to the point of following her neighbour (the plaintiff) about and gathering evidence to challenge her claims of disability.  In response the plaintiff’s counsel apparently conducted an in- depth investigation of the defendant, including her history of unusual behaviour in the neighbourhood, so as to challenge her own credibility and reliability.  The trial was settled before that evidence was heard.

[47] The complexity of this matter is well beyond what was before the Court in Hussack and Radke.


Formal Settlement Offers, Costs, and the Flexibility of the New Rules of Court


Interesting reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing the ‘flexibility‘ that the New Rules of Court give Judges in making costs awards following trials where formal settlement offers were made.
In today’s case (Cairns v. Gill) the Plaintiff brought an ‘exaggerated’ personal injury claim to trial following a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  ICBC made an early formal settlement offer in 2006.   ICBC’s offer was modest at just over $1,200 plus costs.   The Plaintiff rejected the offer and proceeded to trial.   The trial did not go well and the Jury largely rejected the Plaintiff’s claim awarding just over $850 in total damages.
Having beaten their formal offer ICBC applied for an order that the Plaintiff pay their post offer Bill of Costs which was expected to exceed $16,000.  Despited the ‘exaggerated’ nature of the claim Madam Justice Arnold-Bailey found that such a result was unjust.  The Court stripped the Plaintiff of her post offer costs and disbursements however did not award ICBC their costs.  In reaching this result the Court provided the following reasons demonstrating the flexible (but perhaps somewhat unpredictable) nature of the current Civil Rules:
[57] The defendants seek costs and disbursements following the date of the offer to settle, despite the plaintiff obtaining judgment.  This is available pursuant to Rule 9-1(5)(d)…

[59] To make such an order would have a very negative effect on the plaintiff, and have the broader effect of further discouraging those with legitimate claims from bringing their actions in this Court when the defendant, funded by an insurer, has deeper pockets with which to bear the risk of a plaintiff achieving only a minor or, indeed, a pyrrhic victory.

[60] It is clear from the rules and the jurisprudence that costs consequences are to guide counsel in litigation decisions.  The object of the Rules is, “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.”  This object is to be conducted, as far as is practicable, with regard to proportionality.  While this object is frustrated to some extent by a claim worth $851 proceeding to its conclusion at a Supreme Court jury trial where it was more appropriate for determination in Provincial Court, the object and proportionality principle do not appear to accord with the potential cost of litigation in this case.  The bill of costs of the defendants is expected to exceed $16,000.

[61] I note that the Court of Appeal in Giles recognized when dealing with the issue of double costs that “all litigation comes with a degree of risk,” and that, “when faced with settlement offers, plaintiffs must carefully consider their positions.”  However, the court also indicated that plaintiffs, “should not to be cowed into accepting an unreasonable offer out of fear of being penalized with double costs if they are unable to ‘beat’ that offer.”  These considerations also appear relevant in these circumstances.

[62] In this case, pursuing a valid, although exaggerated, personal injury claim to trial, where the offer to settle did not provide a genuine incentive to settle in the circumstances, may, in the face of a defence funded by ICBC, cost the plaintiff almost twenty times what was awarded at trial.  It seems consistent with the object of the Rules generally, and of Rules 9-1 and 14-1(10), to have regard to the need to emphasize litigation decisions that direct cases to the appropriate forum without disproportionately penalizing a party that had some success, however limited.

[63] To this end, as considered in relation to the first issue, Rule 14-1(10) permits the Court to limit a plaintiff to the recovery of disbursements when the amount of the judgment is within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, which I declined to do in this case.  Then, as considered in relation to the second issue, Rule 9-1(5)(a) permits the Court to deprive the plaintiff of any or all of their disbursements after the date of the offer, which I found to be appropriate.  Then, taking the matter even further, Rule 9-1(5)(d) permits the Court to consider requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs in respect of some or all of the steps taken after the date of the offer to settle.

[64] This progression demonstrates the flexibility within the overall framework of the rules to craft an order for costs that is appropriate to the circumstances of each case.

[65] In the present case, the plaintiff, although the “successful” party at trial, agreed to forego her costs after the date of service of the offer to settle and is, by virtue of my decision on the second issue, without disbursements from the date of service of the offer to settle, which occurred very early in the proceedings.  To require her to pay all or some of the defendants’ costs after the date of service of the offer to settle, which at the time was an unreasonably low offer, would be excessive and unjust.  It would not be in keeping with the nature of the offer, the relative financial circumstances of the parties, the principle of proportionality, and the need to avoid decisions that inappropriately discourage plaintiffs from pursuing valid claims.

This case is worth reviewing in full for the Court’s length analysis of many authorities to date addressing costs discretion under the new Rules of Court and further addressing important issues such as sufficient reason to sue in Supreme Court, and the relevance of suing an insured defendant.

Double Costs Ordered for Taking "Extremely Weak" Case to Trial


As recently discussed, when a party is on the losing end of a lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court they usually have to pay the winning sides costs.  If the successful party beat a pre-trial formal settlement offer the Court has the discretion of awarding double costs.  Reasons for judgement were released this week considering an application for double costs where a very modest formal offer was made prior to trial.
In today’s case (Brooks v. Gilchirst) the Plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle incidents.  She sued for damages and both claims were heard at the same time.  ICBC disputed the allegation that a collision took place in the first incident.  Prior to trial ICBC made a $1 formal settlement offer.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  Mr. Justice Sigurdson dismissed the claim finding that “no collision” took place.
ICBC applied for double costs.  The Plaintiff opposed arguing that the nominal offer should not trigger increased costs.  Mr. Justice Sidgurson agreed that while this was typically the case, in circumstances where an ‘extremely weak‘ case proceeds to trial double costs could be awarded in the face of a formal settlement offer.   In reaching this result the Court provided the following reasons:

[16]         In terms of the relationship between the terms of settlement offered and the final judgment of the court, the offer was better than the result, but the offer was only for the sum of $1 plus disbursements.  Ordinarily I would think that a nominal offer of one dollar may not attract orders for double costs but I know that in some cases even nominal offers may attract orders of double costs.  See for example MacKinlay v. MacKinlay Estate, 2008 BCSC 1570; Ludwig v. Bos, 2010 BCSC 695.

[17]         This is a case where there had been expenditures on medical and expert reports.  I think that where it becomes clear that liability will be extremely difficult to establish a nominal offer that has the effect of allowing the plaintiff to recover disbursements and avoid liability for the other party’s disbursements may nevertheless be a substantial offer.

[18]         In considering whether the offer ought reasonably to have been accepted, I think it was quite clear that the plaintiff’s original theory that she had been sideswiped as a result of the collision involving the other two adjacent cars was not maintainable once each side had filed their expert reports.  This was not merely a case where the plaintiff had a claim that was difficult to prove at trial; this was a unique case where on the evidence available to her before trial the plaintiff should have realized that she did not have a realistic position on liability…

[23]         In the circumstances, I think that the ICBC defendants should be awarded costs with respect to the main action.  I have estimated the main action consumed 90% of the time at trial.  The defendants were clearly successful and, in my view, it is not an appropriate order for each side to bear its own costs.

[24]         In terms of whether I should award double costs, I think that, in exercising my discretion, the offer reasonably ought to have been accepted in the days prior to trial.  Although the offer was modest, the circumstances at that time were clear that her case was extremely weak, she would have avoided liability for disbursements, and in fact recovered the disbursements she had incurred.

[25]         I award double costs for the period after two days prior to trial.

The High Cost of Losing an ICBC Injury Claim


I’ve written many times about the significant costs a party can be exposed to for being on the losing end of a BC Supreme Court lawsuit.  Reasons for judgement were released today further demonstrating this reality under the New BC Supreme Court Rules.
In today’s case (Chen v. Beltran) the young Plaintiff entered an intersection against a red light on his skateboard.  He was struck by a vehicle operated by the Defendant and sustained injuries.  He sued for damages but his claim was dismissed with the Court finding him entirely at fault for the accident.
Rule 14-1(9) of the BC Supreme Court Rules typically requires a losing party to pay costs to a successful party.  ICBC relied on this section and requested that their costs of over $75,000 be paid by the Plaintiff’s family.   The Plaintiff opposed arguing that no costs should be awarded.  One of the reasons advanced by the Plaintiff was that such an order would “financially cripple the (plaintiff’s) family“.
Mr. Justice Greyell rejected this argument.  The Court, while disallowing some of the most significant disbursements claimed by the Defendant, did go on to order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs.  In rejecting the “financially crippling” argument Mr. Justice Greyell reasoned as follows:
[11] The first basis upon which the plaintiff says the defendants should be denied costs is that Allan suffered significant injuries in the Accident and will require ongoing medical and psychological care throughout his life.  His ongoing care will involve significant cost to both his parents.  Allan’s parents have already incurred substantial debt to prosecute the lawsuit, have limited financial resources and will have difficulty providing for Allan’s future care even if they are successful on this application.  The plaintiff says that an order for costs will financially “cripple” the family.  While I have great sympathy for Allan’s parents the case law is clear that the financial circumstances of a litigant, standing alone, are not to be taken into consideration as a factor in the awarding of costs…

[14]         It is clear based on the above authorities that this Court is unable, on any principled basis, to take the plaintiff’s financial circumstances into account in determining whether to award costs.

[15]         To conclude otherwise would undermine the rationale underlying Rule 14-9 and would likely lead to the promotion of litigation rather than to promote the “winnowing” function described by Hall J.A. in Catalyst Paper.  It would lead to a collapse of the general principle discussed in the authorities and result in the unacceptable proposition that costs in each case would be measured not by a party’s success but by the personal financial circumstances of the litigants.

It is worth noting that this result should be contrasted with cases decided under Rule 9-1(5) where the Court does have a discretion to consider a party’s financial circumstances following trial where a formal offer of settlement was made.
Today’s case demonstrates the real world expenses that can be associated with losing an ICBC Claim in the BC Supreme Court.  It is vital to gauge these costs and the risks of trial prior to putting a case before a Judge or Jury.

Defendant Punished With Costs Award for Relying on "Advocate" Expert Witness


Dr. Hymie Davis is a psychiatrist who has been frequently retained by ICBC to provide expert opinions as to the extent of Plaintiff’s accident related injuries.  (You can click here to access my previous posts setting out the billings of Dr. Davis and other experts often retained by ICBC).  In a judgement released last week, the BC Supreme Court harshly criticized Dr. Davis and took the unusual step of punishing the Defendant, (who was insured with ICBC), for relying on him at trial.
In last week’s case (Jayetileke v. Blake) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.  She sued for damages.  Prior to trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer of $122,500.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  She was ultimately awarded about $9,000 less than the settlement offer by the trial judge.
Normally, in these circumstances, ICBC would be entitled to their costs and possibly double costs from the time of their offer onward.  Mr. Justice Dley, however, refused to follow this usual course finding that not only should the Defendant not be awarded costs, but they should pay the Plaintiff costs.  The reason for this departure was a finding that Dr. Davis was “nothing more than an advocate thinly disguised in the cloak of an expert” and he should not have been relied on by the defence at trial.
Mr. Justice Dley provided the following damaging criticism of Dr. Davis as an expert witness and warning to lawyers who  intend to rely on experts who have a history of crossing the line into advocacy:

[35] Dr. Davis had a history before the courts where his evidence was rejected and his objectivity called into question: Grewal v. Brar et al, 2004 BCSC 1157, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1819; Gosal v. Singh, 2009 BCSC 1471, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2131; Kelly v. Sanmugathas, 2009 BCSC 958, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1413; and Smusz v. Wolfe Chevrolet, 2010 BCSC 82, [2010] B.C.J. No. 114.

[36] A witness may have a poor day in court – that does not mean the witness was dishonest or forever unreliable. However, Dr. Davis had displayed an alarming inability to appreciate his role as an expert and the accompanying privilege to provide opinion evidence.

[37] The defence was alive to his propensity to abuse the role of an expert. His reputation would have been known from the cited decisions. Plaintiff’s counsel succinctly set out the concerns about Dr. Davis in a letter dated January 29, 2010, which stated:

1.         Although he may have once been a qualified expert in psychiatry and able to give opinion evidence in court, we suggest he no longer is properly qualified to give opinion evidence. We will suggest that he is no longer aware of his duty to assist the court and in reality he is an advocate for ICBC. Additionally, we will submit that he has been so consistently discredited by the courts of this Province that he is incapable of being qualified as an expert;

2.         His report is replete with advocacy. The report is an attempt [to] neutralize any material/opinions which support the plaintiff’s claim rather than providing an objective medical opinion;

3.         His report contains many opinions and arguments that are beyond his expertise; and

4.         The information apparently gleaned from the plaintiff is inaccurate and incomplete and coloured to advance his position.

[38] In spite of the concerns that the Courts have expressed, the defence nonetheless proffered Dr. Davis as an expert in opposition to the plaintiff’s complaints of depression and anxiety. My assessment of Dr. Davis was as follows (oral reasons May 13, 2010):

[43]      Dr. Hymie Davis, a psychiatrist, examined Ms. Jayetileke on January 12, 2010 at the request of the defence. I find his evidence to be unreliable. I give it no weight for the following reasons.

[44]      Dr. Davis was an advocate. He was argumentative, defensive, non-responsive, and prone to rambling discourses that were not relevant to the questions posed in cross-examination.

[45]      Dr. Davis was asked to leave the courtroom so that counsel could argue about questions to be put to him. Dr. Davis was seen peeking into the courtroom and listening to the discussion. He was again asked to leave. In spite of these instructions given to him, Dr. Davis hovered within hearing distance and, on four occasions, stuck his head into the courtroom to hear what was occurring.

[46]      Dr. Davis conceded that without his notes, he would not be able to recall the discussion with Ms. Jayetileke. He relied on his notes to prepare his report.

[47] Dr. Davis had noted that Ms. Jayetileke awakened once or twice a week and that this was in some measure related to the accident-related symptoms. He was adamant Ms. Jayetileke had not said that she awakened once or twice a night. He said that his notes would reflect what Ms. Jayetileke had told him.

[48]      His notes referred to Ms. Jayetileke awakening once or twice but did not specify whether that was nightly or weekly. Nonetheless, Dr. Davis tried to point out other references in his notes that meant a weekly occurrence. Those references did not strengthen his evidence. They simply confirmed the unreliability of his testimony.

[49]      Dr. Smith had commented about how important it was for the history-taking to be done in a setting where the patient was comfortable and at ease with the interviewer. Dr. Davis’s demeanour would not lend itself to Ms. Jayetileke being at ease in his presence so that an effective and accurate history could have been taken. Ms. Jayetileke was under the impression that Dr. Davis did not take things seriously. I accept her view of the interview and prefer her evidence to that of Dr. Davis.

[39] For a trial to be fair, the Court must allow each party to put its best case forward. Where a party seeks to advance its position with reckless abandon seeking only the ultimate goal of victory and using questionable evidence along the way, that party risks sanctions in the form of costs penalties. Where the conduct is reprehensible and deserving of reproof and rebuke, the penalty is special costs. “Costs considerations are meant to guide counsel and litigants in the choices and strategies they pursue in litigation”: Karpodinis v. Kantas, 2006 BCCA 400, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2074 at para. 4.

[40] In this case and against the backdrop of previous judicial comment, the defence tendered Dr. Davis. He was nothing more than an advocate thinly disguised in the cloak of an expert. That is conduct deserving of rebuke and from which the Court disassociates itself.

[41] Dr. Davis attempted to inject levity to the proceedings when he was introduced to the Court – his reference to scotch can only be taken as an attempt to be humorous. However, these are serious and solemn proceedings and should be treated as such. His opening comments were unnecessary and unhelpful.

[42] Dr. Davis’ refusal to remove himself from earshot of the Court proceedings despite repeated requests was reprehensible. His conduct simply confirmed a lack of respect for Court proceedings.

[43] Under these circumstances, special costs are to be awarded against the defendant.

[44] The special costs will be the equivalent of the costs of the entire trial. The defendant will be deprived of any costs that it might otherwise have been entitled to as result of the offer to settle.

[45] The plaintiff is awarded costs as if there had been no offer to settle made. The defendant shall receive no costs.

[46] The plaintiff shall receive costs of this application.

Defendant Refused Costs at Trial For Failing to Consent to Small Claims Court Transfer


Reasons for judgement were released today addressing whether a Defendant who beat a formal settlement offer should be awarded costs.
In today’s case (Cue v. Breitkruez) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision.  He sued the rear motorist for damages.  Prior to trial the Defendant made a formal settlement offer for $1.  With liability being hotly contested the Plaintiff proposed that the case be transferred to Small Claims Court.  The Defendant refused to consent stating that “such a transfer would result in greater delay“.
At trial the Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with a finding that the Plaintiff was responsible for the collision.  (You can click here to read my summary of the trial judgement).  The Defendant then applied to be awarded double costs pursuant to Rule 9-1(5) because they beat their formal offer at trial.
Mr. Justice Smith dismissed the application noting that since Rule 14-1(10) generally restricts Plaintiff’s awarded an amount within the small claims court jurisdiction from being awarded trial costs that the Defendant should be refused costs for not agreeing to have the case heard in Provincial Court.  Specifically Mr. Justice Smith noted as follows:

7]             The matter remained in this court subject to an agreement to still limit the claim to what could be awarded in Provincial Court. Had my liability decision been different and the matter proceeded to an assessment of damages, Rule 14-1(10) would have been a bar to an award of any costs, other than disbursements, in favour of the plaintiff.  In my view, fairness requires that the same limitation apply to the successful defendant, particularly as the defendant did not agree to the proposed transfer to Provincial Court.

[8]             I therefore decline to award any costs to the defendant, other than disbursements.  There is therefore no need to consider the offer to settle because there are no costs to double.

BCCA Finds Courts Can Consider Insurance Under Rule 37B


Very important reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Court of Appeal addressing a key factor under Rule 37B.
By way of brief introduction Rule 37B is the current rule dealing with formal settlement offers.   (Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 next month but the new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B).
The Court can take formal settlement offers into account when awarding a party costs.  One factor the Court can consider in deciding whether to award costs or increased costs under Rule 37B is “the relative financial circumstances of the parties“.
In most personal injury lawsuits Defendants are insured such that they don’t have a significant financial stake in the outcome of the trial.  BC Supreme Court judges have been conflicted in whether insurance is a relevant consideration when viewing the financial circumstances of the parties.  Today the BC Court of Appeal addressed this issue for the first time.
In today’s case (Smith v. Tedford) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  Before trial the Plaintiff made a formal settlement offer.   Several days into trial the Defendant accepted the offer.   The parties could not agree on the costs consequences.  The trial judge awarded the Plaintiff costs to the time the offer was made and double costs for the time spent at trial.  (You can click here to read my post summarizing the trial judge’s reasons).  In doing so the Judge considered the fact that the Defendant was insured with ICBC as relevant to his ‘financial circumstances“.
ICBC, on behalf of the Defendant, appealed arguing that the Judge was wrong to consider insurance.   In a welcome development the BC Court of Appeal found as follows:
While I recognize arguments over the implications of a defendant’s insurance coverage being considered in relation to an award of costs may go back and forth, like the judge I consider precluding such from consideration renders an assessment of the parties’ relative financial circumstances, at least in a case of this kind, very artificial indeed. Clearly, with ICBC having assumed the defence, the financial ability to defend was much greater than the financial ability to prosecute, and that is of no small importance to considering whether and to what extent the financial circumstances of the parties, relative to each other, bear on an award of costs where, as here, there has been an offer of settlement made ten days before a trial for the assessment of personal injury damages which was not accepted until the seventh day of the trial.

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5

Contact

If you would like further information or require assistance, please get in touch.

ERIK
MAGRAKEN

Personal Injury Lawyer

When not writing the BC Injury Law Blog, Erik is the managing partner at MacIsaac & Company, based in Victoria, B.C. He is also involved with combative sports regulatory issues and authors the Combat Sports Law Blog.

“Work hard, be kind and enjoy the ride!”
Erik’s Philosophy

Disclaimer