Erwin v. Helmer
The defendants apply for dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 9 7(2)....
Welcome to the Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota personal injury case law database.
Our firm has collected and organized a number of personal injury court decisions in a publicly-accessible database, for use as a resource by law students, other lawyers and firms, as well as the general public. This database will include some of our firm’s results, as well as results from many other lawyers. For information about results from this firm only, please click here.
The British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal are the sources for all of the cases in this database; these cases are not official versions of the material produced, and were not made in affiliation with or the endorsement of the British Columbia Superior Courts.
Gatzke v. Sidhu
THE COURT: The subject motor vehicle accident happened on January 31, 2006, at the intersection of 64th Avenue and 152nd Street in Surrey. It was dark and raining. The plaintiff was westbound on 64th Avenue; her evidence is that she was intending to drive further along 64th and eventually to turn right and proceed north up 144th Street....
Sandhu v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
In December 2001, the plaintiff, Mr. Sandhu, retained Mr. Schroeder to settle his personal injury claim against Mr. Moore and his claim against ICBC for Part VII benefits. (Previous to that, another lawyer handled these claims, and before seeing Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Sandhu filed a notice of intention to act in person.) In January 2002, Mr. Schroeder reached a settlement with defence counsel over the telephone. Mr. Sandhu signed a release and consent dismissal order. In this action - commenced in September 2009 - Mr. Sandhu claims that he did not understand the agreement and did not consent to a settlement of his claims. This was so, he says, because he was depressed and because he did not understand English well enough. He claims damages against Mr. Schroeder. His claim against ICBC can only be construed as one to set aside the settlement agreement. Both defendants plead a limitation defence....
Battagliola v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
This action relates to a knee injury suffered by Ms. Battagliola on February 15, 2005, at the New Westminster store of Wal-Mart Canada Corp. (Wal-Mart). This proceeding is brought under old Rule 66 now Rule 15-1. The plaintiff says that an uninstalled metal shelf that had been left sitting horizontally on the floor was kicked over and struck her right knee. This, she says, has resulted in her suffering chronic pain in and around her right knee. ...
Bouchard v. Brown Bros. Motor Lease Canada Ltd.
The plaintiff, Maurice Bouchard, claims damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 26, 2005. The plaintiff, who was 26 years old at the time, was seated in the front passenger seat of his brothers parked truck when it was struck from behind by a pick-up truck owned by the defendants, Brown Bros. Motor Lease Canada Ltd. and United Scaffold Supply Company Inc., and operated by the defendant, Antoine Naudi. At the time of impact, the plaintiff was turned in his seat, facing to his left, as he moved some objects on the front passenger seat. He was not wearing a seatbelt because the vehicle was parked....
Chang v. Wren
This is an application brought by the defendant that the proceedings in this matter be transferred to the Provincial Court of British Columbia....
Hough v. Wyatt
THE COURT: The 49-year-old plaintiff, Michael Hough, claims damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on March 9, 2009. Do I have that date right?...
Dolha v. Heft
This is an action by the plaintiff for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The parties do not dispute liability. The defendant applies for a determination of damages pursuant to Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009. Both parties consent to a summary trial of this issue. Although the parties argue the court should draw different inferences from the facts, the material facts are not in dispute. Accordingly, I agree that the summary trial procedure is appropriate. The plaintiffs claim is based on a relatively minor accident that led to mild to moderate whiplash injuries. There is no claim for past or future wage loss. Nor does the plaintiff claim any special damages. The sole issue is the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.MATERIAL FACTS...
Dolha v. Heft
This is an action by the plaintiff for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The parties do not dispute liability. The defendant applies for a determination of damages pursuant to Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009. Both parties consent to a summary trial of this issue. The material facts are not in dispute; it is a question of drawing inferences from the facts to arrive at a proper assessment of damages. I agree with the parties assessment that the summary trial procedure is appropriate. The plaintiffs claim is based on a relatively minor accident that caused mild to moderate whiplash injuries. There is no claim for past or future wage loss. Nor does the plaintiff claim any special damages. The sole issue is the quantum of non-pecuniary damages....
Balderston v. Aspin
The plaintiff claims to have suffered injuries as a result of motor vehicle accident which occurred on September 17, 2008. The defendant denies liability for the accident....
Chamberlain v. Jodoin
The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk adjacent to a commercial building owned by the defendant, New Orient Enterprises Ltd. (New Orient). One of the tenants in the building is the defendant, Donna Jodoin....
Minosky v. Brar
These two related actions came on for hearing before me to determine liability only....