IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20150928

Docket: M131767

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Miriam Karp

Plaintiff

And

Davinder
S. Kalsi, Kalsi’s South Van Truck and Auto Repair Ltd.,
Gordon Glanz, David H. Guenter, and J.F. Butler and Sons Ltd.

Defendants

Before:
Registrar Cameron

Oral Decision on Costs

[1]            
This personal injury action resulted from a
motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 3, 2011.

[2]            
The Plaintiff retained counsel on August 3, 2012.
Pleadings were closed and liability was admitted on behalf of the Defendants.

[3]            
I find the relevant history of the litigation as
its pertains to the assessment of costs to be as follows:

·      
The matter was set for trial for five days to
commence on October 26, 2015.

·      
The parties exchanged documents and the
Plaintiff was examined for discovery.

·      
Negotiations then ensued between counsel for the
Plaintiff and the Defendants. The parties were ready to proceed to a mediation
in December of 2014, but due to a scheduling conflict that mediation did not
proceed.

·      
On May 20, 2015, approximately five months before
the trial date the Plaintiff’s claim was settled.

[4]            
In his affidavit of justification, Plaintiff’s
counsel, Mr. Witten, testifies that at the time the matter settled the
remaining steps to be taken before trial included serving a medical report that
had been obtained, attending a trial management conference and preparing the Plaintiff
and the lay witnesses to give evidence at trial, and drafting opening and
closing submissions.

[5]            
Mr. Witten also testified that when the
matter settled the case was substantially prepared. There was no evidence to
the contrary tendered on behalf of by the Defendants and Mr. Witten was
not required for cross-examination.

[6]            
I am satisfied that the matter was substantially
ready for trial. The parties were able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of their respective cases and, to their credit, were able to resolve the matter
five months before trial.

[7]            
In reaching this conclusion I rely upon Christen
v. McKenzie, 2013 BCSC 1317, where the court said:

[35]      To my
mind significant preparation for trial ought to be sufficient to entitle the
successful party to costs for pre-trial preparation to the full amount of the
cap, presently $6,500 pursuant to Rule 15-1(15). Pre-trial preparation may take
various forms given the demands of the particular action. Whether the parties
engage in extensive negotiations or mediation and thus achieve a settlement
months or days before trial, the preparation by counsel may easily approach
that required to actually conduct the trial. The focus ought to be on the
amount of useful preparatory work done and not where in the pre-trial timeline
the resolution was reached.

[36]      …
The efficacy of conducting a fast track action ought not to be undermined by a
costs analysis that bogs down in the picayune.

[8]            
In this case, as I have said, the parties were
ready for trial. As is almost always the case, unless a settlement occurs “on
the courthouse steps”, there is something more that could be done by counsel
for the parties but Supreme Court Civil Rule 15-1 is meant to encourage timely
settlement and resolution of litigation, including claims for costs.

[9]            
For those reasons, I award the plaintiff the full
amount allowed pursuant to Rule 15-1(15), being $6,500 plus taxes.

“Registrar
Cameron”