26 May Mendoza-Flores v. Haigh

           The plaintiff, Karen Mendoza-Flores, was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents, both of which occurred on Departure Bay Road in Nanaimo, British Columbia. The first accident, involving the first defendant, Patricia Haigh, occurred on September 24, 2007. The second accident, involving the second defendant, Timothy Harmeson, occurred on May 7, 2008....

Read More

21 May Lee v. MacLean

           The plaintiff, Mr, Shun Lee, was involved in two motor vehicle accidents in 2003.  The first occurred on 14 August (“Accident #1”) and the second on 12 October (“Accident #2”).  I will refer to the two accidents combined as the “2003 Accidents”....

Read More

13 May Spencer v. Horton

             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 Court’s 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...

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

13 May Spencer v. Popham

             Melanie Spencer commenced her action in Supreme Court but then settled her claim for an amount within the Small Claim Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, is she entitled to costs in this Court? Was there “sufficient reason” for her to commence the claim in Supreme Court?Background...

Read More

05 May Mudry v. Minhas

             This is an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  It is brought under Rule 68.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants were at fault and that she suffered injuries as a result....

Read More

30 Apr Cue v. Breitkreuz

             This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision in which the plaintiff’s 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....

Read More

23 Apr Freidooni v. Freidooni

             The plaintiff was injured in Alberta in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 20, 2007.  She was a passenger in a vehicle being operated by her husband, the defendant, Vahid Freidooni.  She has brought this proceeding for damages, alleging that her husband’s negligence was the cause of the collision giving rise to her injuries.  I will sometimes refer to Mr. Freidooni as the defendant....

Read More