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....
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....
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....
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...
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....
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....
At the conclusion of a summary trial I invited counsel to make submissions in writing dealing with the issue of costs. The summary trial involved the assessment of damages for the infant plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident....
The defendant applies for an order dismissing Mr. Toors claim for want of prosecution.BACKGROUND...
This is the plaintiffs assessment of her costs in a medical malpractice action that settled on December 5, 2010 (the day before a 10 day trial of the action was set to begin) for some $200,000 plus costs and disbursements....
The plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against the defendant, Robert Dutra, on June 10, 2005. This trial was for the assessment of damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of an assault by the defendant. The plaintiff testified. A consulting report from Dr. Lanius, a neuropsychologist, dated July 16, 2004, was also in evidence. Finally, a statement of lost wages was placed into evidence. There were no medical reports before the court, either past or current....