News

In reasons for judgment released today, the court in Smith v. Wind, 2017 BCSC 342, awarded a 47-year-old plaintiff $248,996 in total damages following a motor vehicle accident.  The plaintiff in Smith was rear-ended and sustained soft-tissue injuries to his shoulder and neck.  He subsequently developed an addiction to Oxycodone.  Prior to the accident the plaintiff had used OxyCocet to deal with knee pain, and had also suffered from a heroin addiction.  In discussing the evidence and ultimately awarding $65,000 in non-pecuniary damages, Mr. Justice Dley said as follows: [5]             Mr. Smith is 47 years old. He is married and

In reasons for judgment released today, the court in Rycroft v. Rego, 2017 BCSC 373, awarded the plaintiff $217,500 in damages after he was assaulted by his neighbour.  The assault stemmed from a dispute about the behavior of the defendant’s son at a BMX “bike park” which had been set up on vacant land in between the plaintiff and defendant’s respective properties.  Another neighbour had noticed the defendant’s son and a friend in the bike park, and believed they were doing damage to it.  That neighbour yelled at the children to get off the property.  The defendant was told (mistakenly)

In reasons for judgment released yesterday, the court in Widdowson v. Rockwell, 2017 BCSC 385, found the owners of the Cambie Pub in Vancouver 25% at fault for a car accident caused by a drunk customer.  The defendant in Widdowson was a sheet metal worker who went to the Cambie Pub after work with colleagues and got completely pissed.  The Pub staff knew the defendant was drunk and did nothing to stop him from driving.  After leaving the bar the defendant drove to Coquitlam along with a co-worker.  The interesting twist in the case was that the accident happened after

In reasons for judgment released today, the court in G.P. v. W.B., 2017 BCSC 297, ordered the names of both the plaintiff and defendant in a personal injury action iniitialized, and the court file sealed, as the court found that “publicity which identifies [the plaintiff] could definitely be harmful to [the plaintiff’s] mental health“.  The plaintiff in G.B. had long-standing mental health issues, including bi-polar disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder.  On his own motion, the trial judge questioned the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist whether it was possible that “publicity would affect G.P.’s mental well-being”.  The psychiatrist said it might.  On this basis

In reasons for judgment released today, the court in Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2017 BCSC 302, found the City of Salmon Arm liable in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff was injured after tripping on a piece of metal sticking out of a city sidewalk.  The piece of metal was what remained of a crosswalk sign that had been severed from its base at some point in the past.  A city employee had previously discovered the severed sign in the area, but was not able to determine where it had come from.  The employee decided to await the spring

In reasons for judgment released today, the court in Huang v. Bertelsen, 2015 BCSC 2650, ordered the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination with a defence psychiatrist.  The plaintiff in Huang objected to the attendance on the basis that she had a trip booked to Las Vegas that conflicted with the examination date.   The court was not impressed with this argument, as the plaintiff had prior knowledge the IME would take place on that day.  In ordering the plaintiff’s attendance (and awarding the defence its costs), Madam Justice Fenlon said as follows: [6]             The only issue is the convenience