18 Oct DeMerchant v. Chow and A-1 Fire Supplies

             The defendants/applicants seek two orders in these proceedings:          1.       That the plaintiff is competent to give evidence on his own behalf in these proceedings, and          2.       That the defendants are granted leave to examine for discovery the plaintiff at such time and place as may be decided by counsel for the parties....

Read More

08 Oct Luedecke v. Hillman

           THE COURT:  This is an appeal from an order made by Master Scarth requiring the plaintiff to attend at the office of Dr. Reebye, a physiatrist, in New Westminster at 8:30 on September 30th, 2010 and submit to a medical examination "to provide a response report pursuant to Rule 11-6(4).”...

Read More

26 Jul Geiger v. Schmidt

             Ms. Geiger, the plaintiff, suffered injuries in two accidents a year apart. The first accident occurred on December 1, 2007, the second a year later, on December 3, 2008. The plaintiff started two separate actions, but a Master ordered them heard together....

Read More

23 Jul Hunter v. Anderson

             In this action, the plaintiff, Shannon Hunter, claims damages for injuries said to have resulted from slipping and falling on the front stairs to her rental accommodation at 3131 Raleigh Street, in Port Coquitlam on January 7, 2004.  The defendant, Flora Anderson, was the plaintiff’s landlady at the material time.  The plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant occupier contrary to the terms of the Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337....

Read More

21 Jul Wormell v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

             This application involves an interpretation of ss. 64(a) and 72(1) and (2) of Part 6 – Third Party Legal Liability, of the Revised Regulation (1984) Under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, B.C. Reg. 447/83 as amended. The sections raise two issues which are simply described as the coverage issue (s. 64), and the exclusion issue (s. 72)....

Read More

03 Jun Jones v. Ma

             THE COURT:  In this personal injury trial, the defendant has tendered an expert report of an accident reconstruction expert. The cover page of the report is signed by Gerald Sdoutz, Forensic Engineer, and is dated February 26, 2009, although it appears that that date is in error and should be February 26, 2010....

Read More

27 May Fong v. Deglan

           On May 6, 2010 I heard an application by the plaintiff, Irene Fong, to amend her statement of claim to add a claim pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act to recover the costs of government services provided to her.  The application was heard at the same time as an application for the same relief brought by Ms. April Gosselin in New Westminster Registry No. S104306....

Read More

27 May Gosselin v. Shepherd

           On May 6, 2010 I heard two applicants raising the same issue.  In these reasons I will deal with the application in New Westminster Registry No. S104306 in which the plaintiff, April Gosselin, applies for an order to amend her statement of claim to add a claim pursuant to s. 2 of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, R.S.B.C., 2008 Ch. 27 (the “Act”) to recover the cost of health care services provided to her by the government of British Columbia.  In Vancouver Registry No. S070700 the plaintiff, Irene Fong, made application for substantially the same amendment.  I will deal with that application in separate reasons....

Read More

20 May Beer v. Nickerson

             The plaintiff applies for an order that certain items listed in Part III of the defendant Nickerson’s list of documents be produced for inspection. Ms. Nickerson claims privilege over the documents on the basis that each item was created for the dominant purpose of litigation at a time when litigation was a reasonable possibility.Background...

Read More

13 May Legault v. Brock Shopping Centre Ltd.

             This is a claim for personal injury damages arising out of an outdoor slip and fall in a shopping centre. The fall occurred on the margin of the parking lot and a covered sidewalk along the store fronts, within an area that is clearly the responsibility of the defendant landlord to maintain. The action was dismissed by consent against the other defendants, retail tenants, at the outset of the trial. The shopping centre denies liability.Review of the Evidence Relating to the Conditions and the Plaintiff’s Fall...

Read More