On the afternoon of October 28, 2004, the plaintiff, a 17 year-old labourer at a window manufacturing company and part-time university student, attended at the Chilliwack General Hospital emergency department for suturing of a laceration he had sustained at work. He was discharged from hospital the next morning with sutures in his hand, a basal skull fracture, and a significant brain injury....
This is an application on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada (the Attorney General) to strike out certain portions of the Notice of Civil Claim (Notice) of Robert Callen (the plaintiff)....
THE COURT: The plaintiff seeks damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her when a Translink bus on which she was a passenger braked suddenly to avoid a collision with a vehicle driven by an unidentified motorist....
THE COURT: INTRODUCTION...
On July 5, 2012, I rendered judgment for the plaintiff in this personal injury case that arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 5, 2008. The reasons are indexed at 2012 BCSC 974. The plaintiff was awarded damages totaling $83,937, broken down as follows:Special damages: $2,937;Non-pecuniary damages: $50,000;Past wage loss: $7,000;Future loss of earning capacity: $23,000; andCost of future care: $1,000....
In these reasons I will deal with two applications. The first is an application by the plaintiff to be awarded 90% of her assessed costs and disbursements throughout this proceeding. The second is an application by the defendants for an order that the plaintiff recover 25% of her costs up to the delivery of the defendants June 27, 2011 settlement offer and no costs thereafter and that they be awarded 100% of their costs of this proceeding from that date. In the alternative, the defendants seek an order that the plaintiff shall be entitled to 25% of her costs up to June 27, 2011 and that no costs be awarded to either party after that date....
This is an application for directions pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules, R. 14-1(7) brought by the defendants concerning two issues related to costs:(a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to 100% for costs or to 93% pursuant to s. 2 of the Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333; and(b) what is the disposition with respect to costs concerning the s. 25 application?...
In the early evening of June 23, 2008 the plaintiff Erin McRoy (formerly known as Jason Michael Currie) was driving a yellow and white taxi (the Taxi) en route to the City of Vernon when he attempted to turn left onto Highway 97 at the intersection with Meadowlark Road (the Intersection). At the same time, the defendant Allan Sharp was driving a delivery van (the Van) owned by the defendant Karen Lorraine Taylor northbound on Highway 97 approaching the Intersection. The Taxi crossed over a portion of Highway 97 with the intention of turning left into the southbound lane when the Van collided with the drivers side of the Taxi in the northbound left/center lane. The impact caused enormous damage to both vehicles and the plaintiff was seriously injured. The issue to be resolved in this trial is to what degree, if any, the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant Sharp.Evidence...
On January 21, 2009, Gaspere Bossio was rear-ended while driving on Como Lake Road in Coquitlam. He suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident which had an immediate and significant impact on him. The defendant driver, Ms. Yee Li, has admitted liability. The trial proceeded before me for an assessment of damages. The parties do not have significant disputes between them regarding the facts. The defendant does not take issue with the plaintiffs credibility. There are limited disputes about the medical findings. Those disputes relate to whether Mr. Bossio has substantially recovered from his injuries and whether he is suffering from a chronic pain disorder. Accordingly, the real issues in this case are the extent to which Mr. Bossio has, to date, recovered from his injuries, and the extent to which he is likely to continue to experience episodic pain and have functional difficulties as a result of those injuries....
In 2006 the plaintiff was involved in four motor vehicle accidents. The first accident was on 24 May (MVA #1); the second on 29 May (MVA #2), the third on 30 May (MVA #3) and the fourth on 14 July (MVA #4)....