Currently, it has become increasingly common to serve parties to a legal action by alternative methods of service through social media channels such as email, Facebook or other forms of social media. This specific type of Order was successfully sought in Burke v. John Doe, 2013 BCSC 964. Rule 4-4 of the BCSC Civil Rules […]
Read more "Rule 4-4 Alternative Methods Of Service – Social Media Channels"The Defendant in Tani v. Baker, 2017 BCSC 1684 applies to court to seek an Order that the Plaintiff attend to see a Radiologist to have various x-rays taken of her legs and right shoulder, in which the Plaintiff suffered fractures as a result of a motor vehicle collision. The xrays were requested by defence […]
Read more "Defence Application to Seek X-Rays Denied – “Intrusive Testing”"It has been a very exciting week, starting in Toronto and attending, by invitation, the Toronto International Film Festival 2017 to attend the feature film of Unicorn Store, a debut film for Brie Larson in which she directs and stars in. Our dear friend, Terry Dougas, was the producer of this film and it was […]
Read more "Red Carpet TIFF 2017, Med Mal Conference & Professional Voice Coach"This post will go over the test for mitigation. The following cases are referenced in this post: Janiak v. Ippolito, 1985 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146. Graham v. Rogers, 2001 BCCA 432 (leave to appeal refused) Chiu v. Chiu, 2002 BCCA 618 (CanLii) Turner v. Coblenz, 2008 BCSC 1801 (CanLii) Latuszek v. Bel-Air […]
Read more "The “Subjective / Objective” Test – Mitigation"The Best Evidence Rule – Adverse Inference Cases referenced in this post are: Blatch v. Archer (1774), 1 Cowp. 63 R. v. Jolivet, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751 Buksh v. Miles, 2008 BCCA 318 Jin v. Spurrel, 2017 BCSC 1256 The Best Evidence Rule relates to what we know as “adverse inference” which can be drawn […]
Read more "The “Best Evidence Rule”"The onus of proof lies with the Plaintiff in establishing that the Plaintiff is entitled to wage loss benefits under Sections 80 and 86 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations. The following cases are referenced in this blog post: Malkin v. Crown Life Insurance Co. (1989), 1989 CanLII 2898 (BC SC), 56 D.L.R. (4th) 296 (B.C.S.C.) […]
Read more "Policy & Standard of Proof – Wage Loss Benefits (Part 7 Benefits)"Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 (CanLii), this decision has been referenced in several cases, and a debate exists on whether or not this decision may decrease the use of expert opinion and testimony as it pertains to psychological injury. A recent Court of Appeal decision in […]
Read more "Damages for Mental Distress in Contract Law / Saadati Reference"This post pertains to discrepancy of evidence. Specifically, the Courts have noted that discrepancies in evidence is not necessarily as significant as counsel may think. Moreso, discrepancies in the evidence does not always impact the credibility of the Plaintiff. While it is important to highlight any inconsistencies or contradictions that may exist in the evidence, it is […]
Read more "Discrepancy of Evidence"The following three cases have been referenced as the “Benefit Revival Trilogy” cases which were referenced in Symons v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1883 (CanLII) “Symons”, and upheld by BC Court of Appeal in Symons v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 207 (CanLII): Brewer v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1999] […]
Read more "The “Benefit Revival Trilogy” Cases – Part 7 Benefits"This post will offer an analysis of the issue of whether a Plaintiff is entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 15-1(15). The leading authority Christen v. McKenzie, 2013 BCSC 1317 is noted, including various cases which reference this case. Costs (15) Unless the court otherwise orders or the parties consent, and subject to Rule 14-1 (10), […]
Read more "Case Law Analysis of Fast Track Costs – Rule 15-1(15)"