Often, a client has pre-existing conditions that become relevant in a “personal injury” legal action, and a careful analysis is necessary. This recent decision in Cheema v. Khan, 2017 BCSC 974 provides an analysis of the thin skull principle v. the crumbling skull principle and it is worthy of review. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [8] The principles to […]
Read more "Thin Skull v. Crumbling Skull"Setting Aside the Default Judgment [23] The defendant submits that the default judgment should be set aside because he can satisfy each element of the test set out in the case of Miracle Feeds v. D & H Enterprises Ltd. [1979] BCJ 1965. He submits that: a. His failure to file a response to civil […]
Read more "The Test to Set Aside a Default Judgment"The Court has the discretionary authority pursuant to Rule 9-1(5)(b) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to award double costs after the delivery of settlement offers. This recent decision in Anderson v. Pieters 2017 BCSC 954 offers a fact pattern in which the Plaintiff sought double costs without success. Double Costs [4] The Court’s […]
Read more "Double Costs after Delivery of Settlement Offers – Rule 9-1(5)(b) of the BCSC Civil Rules"The insurance exception to the rule against double recovery is analyzed in this recent case. Thompson v. Helgeson, 2017 BCSC 927 It is argued that Disability Pension Benefits received by the Plaintiff do not fall within the private insurance exception to the principle that a plaintiff is only entitled to be compensated for his or […]
Read more "Disability Pension Benefits – Insurance Exception Rule"In Kenny v. Bateman 2017 BCSC 900, a Master’s decision to Order that the Plaintiff attend a neuro-psychological assessment is appealed on the basis that this is a second IME. The plaintiff’ position is that the master erred: “(1) in finding that the medical examination was a first examination and not a further or subsequent […]
Read more "Analysis of BCSC Rule 7-6 Order For Medical Evidence"The legal principles were highlighted in Cantwell v Warren, 2017 BCSC 856 (CanLII): Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 (CanLII), at para. 32, provides that: A plaintiff must always prove … that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. If the plaintiff discharges that burden of proof, […]
Read more "Analysis of Loss of Future Earning Capacity"As noted in Dupre v. Patterson, 2013 BCSC 1561 (CanLII) “I wish to say a few words about the material filed. [45] The defendant’s notice of application filed July 3, 2013, did not comply with the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The complete “Factual Basis” for the summary trial was set out on about […]
Read more "Helpful Tips on Preparing Your Summary Trial Application"Dupre v. Patterson, 2013 BCSC 1561 (CanLII) This is a summary trial application by the Defendant for an Order that the action be dismissed on the basis that the Defendant is not liable. This collision is between a cyclist (the Plaintiff) and a vehicle (the Defendant). The court concluded that the Defendant was in fact […]
Read more "Principles as it Pertains to Cyclists & Vehicles"Wee v Fowler, 2017 BCSC 815 (CanLII) This is an application by the Plaintiff for an order that a jury notice filed by the defendants be struck and the trial of this proceeding as well as the other action should be heard by the court without a jury, and that the time for this application […]
Read more "Striking a Jury Notice"Saadati v. Moorhead, 2014 BCSC 1365 (CanLII) Saadati v. Moorhead, 2015 BCCA 393 (CanLii) Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 The anticipated judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada in Saadati v. Moorhead has been rendered today: June 2, 2017. This decision analyzes the issue of whether a psychological injury is compensable without […]
Read more "SCC Judgment Rendered in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 – Psychological Injury"