In reasons for judgment released December 22, 2016, the court in Kim v. Lin, 2016 BCSC 2405 criticized the evidence of the defence Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Grypma, calling his testimony “disingenuous” and describing his report as “either deliberately misleading or grossly careless”. Mr. Justice Sewell wrote:
 With the exception of Dr. Grypma, I found all of the witnesses who testified or provided reports to be credible and reliable witnesses. Unless I specifically indicate otherwise, I accept their evidence.
 There is a fundamental disagreement between Dr. Krassioukov and Dr. Grypma over the cause of Ms. Kim’s complaints. Dr. Krassioukov’s opinion is that the SI joint deterioration noted on the CT scan and MRI is the result of trauma suffered in the Accident. Dr. Grypma is of the opinion that the SI deterioration is minor and is the result of a pre-existing condition unrelated to the Accident.
 I prefer Dr. Krassioukov’s opinion on this issue to that of Dr. Grypma. I appreciate that Dr. Grypma is an orthopedic surgeon, and as such his opinion would ordinarily be accorded considerable weight. However, after reviewing his opinions in the context of the whole of the evidence and observing him under cross-examination, I have concluded that he failed to present balanced and impartial evidence in this case.
 … I find that Dr. Grypma was being disingenuous when he suggested that Dr. Budzianowska-Kwiatkowski’s report was ambiguous and that he was being either deliberately misleading or grossly careless in his reports when he used this passage to suggest that Ms. Kim had recovered from her injuries by October 2008.
 For all of the foregoing reasons, I can give no weight to Dr. Grypma’s opinions.
The full text of the decision can be found here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/24/2016BCSC2405.htm
Can a Mortgage Secure Funds that Have Been Previously Advanced to a Borrower?
Share: In a typical mortgage scenario, a lender advances funds to a borrower at the time…Read more