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.




Ben-Yosef v. Dasanjh

            The plaintiff seeks damages in respect of injuries he sustained when he was struck by a vehicle while walking in a crosswalk. ...

Read More

Hall-Smith v. Yamelst

             Following the trial of this action and judgment rendered (Hall-Smith v. Yamelst, 2015 BCSC 1640 (Hall-Smith)), costs were ordered to follow the event, except if either party wanted to speak to the matter (at para. 77). The defendants seek to deny the plaintiff her costs for several reasons including: (a) because she should have accepted an offer to settle made on January 13, 2015 (Rule 9-1(5)); (b) because she recovered a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court (Rule 14-1(10)); and (c) in the alternative, the plaintiff should be denied her disbursements related to that part of her claim that was unsuccessful (Rule 14-1(15)). Facts ...

Read More

Pavan v. Guolo

             The plaintiff Roberto Pavan was injured on September 22, 2010, when the car he was driving collided with a limousine driven by Mr. Guolo. By agreement, the issue of liability for the motor vehicle accident was determined in a separate trial. In the decision indexed as Pavan v. Guolo, 2016 BCSC 23, Burnyeat J. found the defendants to be entirely at fault for the accident. This action proceeded before me to determine damages. Background ...

Read More

Liu v. Bipinchandra

             The plaintiff, Ms. Liu, was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on South West Marine Drive in Vancouver on September 24, 2008 (the “Accident”). The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (the “Third Party”), accepts that the defendant, Mr. Bipinchandra, was liable for the Accident. The principal issues raised by this case are: i)        the extent or severity of Ms. Liu’s injuries; ii)        whether Ms. Liu properly mitigated her losses; and iii)       what past and future loss of capacity Ms. Liu suffered. Background ...

Read More

Hanlan v. Wilson

             THE COURT:  This is an application by Ms. Wilson, one of the three defendants in this litigation, for an order enjoining the plaintiff's present lawyer, Mr. Legh, from continuing to act on the ground that he is in a conflict of interest. ...

Read More

Semenoff Estate v. Semenoff

             The defendants seek dismissal of this action by way of the summary trial rule, Rule 9-7, or alternatively by means of summary judgment, under Rule 9-6, or by reason of want of prosecution. The defendants further seek an order that both the plaintiff Robert Semenoff (“Robert”) as executor of the Estate of Bill Semenoff, and the Estate be declared vexatious litigants. ...

Read More

Carmichael v. Kwon

             The plaintiff, Krystal-Ann Carmichael, seeks damages for injuries she sustained in two motor vehicle accidents, the first accident occurred on January 26, 2012 (the “MVA”) and the second occurred on May 23, 2014 (the “second MVA”). The first MVA was the more serious of the two. The defendants admit liability for the collisions. The defendants also admit that the accidents caused the plaintiff’s injuries. ...

Read More

Bunnah (Guardian ad litem of) v. Bunnah

             The plaintiff in this action arising from a motor vehicle accident is an infant.  Julien Adarius Bunnah was five years old when the motor vehicle accident occurred on February 18, 2012. ...

Read More

Gill v. Ivanhoe Cambridge I Inc./Ivanhoe Cambridge I Inc.

             Economical Mutual Insurance Company (“Economical”), seeks an order, pursuant to Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, that the Third Party Notice that Mr. Gill filed against Economical on June 12, 2015, be dismissed. In that Third Party Notice, Mr. Gill seeks insurance coverage from Economical. In particular, Mr. Gill seeks a declaration that he is entitled to insurance coverage under an insurance policy issued to him by Economical (the “Policy”), and that he is entitled to indemnification under the Policy for both his legal expenses incurred in defending himself, as well as for any judgment that may be rendered against him under the various third party claims that have been made against him. ...

Read More