Gordon Bakken was injured in a car accident in August 1997. Shortly after the accident, he retained Edward Goddard as his solicitor to bring a personal injury action on his behalf. Mr. Bakken entered into a contingent fee contract (the Contract) with Mr. Goddard. The action was advanced to trial in October 1999 and was heard by Koenigsberg J. Following the trial, Koenigsberg J. awarded damages to Mr. Bakken in an amount slightly in excess of $300,000....
This ruling arises in the context of an extensive application for various forms of pre-trial evidence gathering and disclosure, most parts of which were ultimately spoken to by consent at a hearing on September 30, 2010. At that time I seized myself as the management judge. This development and the matters the parties spoke to are expected to be promptly embodied in an order that includes the disposition contained in these reasons....
This is a family law proceeding brought before July1, 2010. To be consistent with the Supreme Court Family Rules, these reasons will refer to the plaintiff as the claimant and the defendant as the respondent....
The plaintiff was awarded damages less than the defendant's offer to settle. Nonetheless, the plaintiff seeks costs because the defendant called an expert witness who had been branded as an advocate in prior cases, and whose conduct in this trial was deserving of rebuke....
In this personal injury action the 39 year old plaintiff claims damages for injuries the he says were sustained on June 22, 2006 when he was driving his employers 1988 Ford Pickup Truck which was loaded with two large tires weighing approximately 1,200 pounds each. He was in the process of delivering them to a destination while carrying out his business duties for his employer, Midway Tire Limited. ...
The parties to this divorce action were married in June, 1998, and separated in February, 2006. There is no dispute about the divorce and the requirements of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) [Divorce Act] have been satisfied. The primary issues before me are division of family assets and spousal support....
This is a family proceeding involving custody and access, property division and support. A central feature of the trial was the plaintiffs allegation that the defendant sexually abused one of the children.Facts...
The plaintiff in this personal injury action claims damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The present application, brought by the defendant, seeks the production of medical and business records. Despite the failure of the defendant applicant to rely upon Rule 26(11) and Rule 27(22) in the notice of motion, the application was fully argued relying on those rules, without complaint from the plaintiff and, I am satisfied, without prejudice to her. Since the hearing of the defendants application, the new Rules have come into force and effect and Rule 26(11) is now Rule 7‑1(18) and (19), and Rule 27(22) is now Rule 7‑2(18).BackgroundMedical Records...
This is a registrars review pursuant to s. 71 of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 [LPA] of two bills for legal fees and disbursements charged by Mary Fus (the lawyer) of the law firm, Mary Fus Law Corporation, to the client, David Baxter (the client)....
The plaintiffs claim is for damages for personal injuries, loss of housekeeping ability, past and future loss of income earning capacity, future care costs and special damages....