As in Spencer v. Popham, 2010 BCSC 683, released concurrently with this decision (Victoria 09-2313), Melanie Spencer commenced her action in Supreme Court but settled her claim for an amount within the Small Claims Courts jurisdiction. Nevertheless, is she entitled to costs in this Court? The test is whether there was sufficient reason for her to commence the claim in Supreme Court.Background...
This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision in which the plaintiffs car was struck from the rear by the defendants truck. The plaintiff said the collision occurred while he was stopped, waiting to make a left turn. The defendant said the plaintiff suddenly changed lanes, then stopped in front of him, leaving no opportunity to avoid the collision. By agreement of counsel, this trial dealt only with the issue of liability....
In this trial, the plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on January 5, 2006 (the MVA). She was 39 years old at the time of the MVA. She is now 43 years old. She suffered injuries to her neck, right shoulder, and back. She claims that those injuries have not resolved and that they continue to cause her pain and to restrict her activities....
Mr. Murphy Costello (Mr. Costello) was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 26, 2006. Liability is admitted by the defendants. At issue is the quantum of damages owed with respect to the extent of Mr. Costellos injuries from the relatively minor rear-end collision. A complication is that the accident took place about three months after Mr. Costello had back surgery.I. Background...
On December 9, 2006, a car operated by the defendant struck the left rear corner of a car operated by the plaintiff. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was stopped at a red light for eastbound traffic on Kingsway, at 14th Avenue, in Burnaby, BC. The defendant approached from behind and, in an attempt to pass on the left, caught the left rear of the plaintiffs vehicle with the right front of his vehicle. The impact was unexpected. It caused moderate damage to both cars....
The plaintiff, Elio Fata, is advancing a claim for damages for personal injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 13, 2006. It was a rear-end collision that occurred when Mr. Fata was stopped at a traffic light. Mr. Fata was 59 at the time. Mr. Fata did not immediately think that he needed medical treatment and took no time off his work as an Electronics Technician at Simon Fraser University (SFU). As time passed, Mr. Fata felt that his injuries progressed to the point where he had too much restriction and pain in his left shoulder and arm to competently perform his job. He therefore quit his job of 38 years, taking early retirement effective as of July 2008. ...
Evan MacIntyre is presently 22 years old. He is the plaintiff in these three actions which were heard at the same time. Due to the fact that most of the events relevant to the actions occurred while the plaintiff was a minor, I will refer to him by his first name in these reasons. In doing so, I intend the plaintiff no disrespect....
On November 24, 2004, the plaintiff, Lillian Posch, was involved in a relatively minor rear-end collision that caused her soft tissue injuries....
Danny Cabral was driving a pick-up truck when he was struck from behind by a commercial truck driven by Andrew Brice. The accident occurred on March 31, 2006, in Langley, British Columbia....
In each of these actions, the defendants apply under Rule 14(6) (a) and (b) for the following orders:1. that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed herein be struck out or the proceedings against the Defendants be dismissed or stayed on the grounds that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim do not allege facts that, if true, would establish that the Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants in respect of the claims made against the Defendants in the herein action;2. that this action be dismissed or stayed on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendants, in respect of the claims made against them in this action; and3. for costs if, and only to the extent that, application for and receipt of, costs does not constitute submission to the Courts jurisdiction.Background...