12 Jun D.M. v. R.L.
The plaintiff, D.M., seeks damages against the estate of her deceased step-father, J.W., and against her mother, I.M., arising from their treatment of her when she was a child....
11 Jun Sikora v. Brown
These are rulings with respect to costs in these two matters, consequential to the decision I rendered January 9, 2014. That decision is indexed as Sikora v. Brown, 2014 BCSC 30....
30 May Stewart v. Robinson
These reasons address whether an order ought to be made following a non-mandatory case planning conference (the CPC)....
29 May Maras v. Seemore Entertainment Ltd.
This action arises out of an incident that is alleged to have occurred at or near the Au Bar nightclub, located at 674 Seymour Street in Vancouver, B.C., on April 4, 2009 (the Incident). The trial with a jury commenced on April 7, 2014....
14 May Franson v. Caldarella
The plaintiff applies at a trial management conference to have the trial in this matter heard without a jury on the grounds that the issues require prolonged examination of documents, a scientific investigation, and are of an intricate or complex character....
12 May Walker v. John Doe
The defendant, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) brings this application to strike out statements made in three letters by counsel for the plaintiff which are directed at three expert witnesses whose reports are relied on by the defendant. The letters from counsel were delivered in accordance with R.11-6 (10) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg. 168/2009 [Rules], and serve as the plaintiffs notice of objection to the admissibility of each of the experts evidence. The language in the three letters in question is identical except for the experts name. The letters set out in very general terms - which could be described as boilerplate - the reasons why the plaintiff says the reports are inadmissible. The statement to which the defendant objects in each of the letters reads as follows:6. We shall seek sanctions personally against [experts name], including but not limited to Special Costs....
08 May Bay v. Pasieka
On January 27, 2010, following a two-day trial, the action of the plaintiff, Laurie-Ann Bay, against the defendant, Todd Pasieka, was dismissed. I ordered that the issue of costs be adjourned with liberty to the parties to apply to the court if an agreement could not be reached. Three-and-a-half years after the trial, the defendant now applies for costs. The defendant seeks costs at Scale B and double costs from November 14, 2006, the date an offer to settle was made, to the present. The plaintiff says that each party should bear their own costs....
02 May Desharnais v. Parkhurst
A trial assessing damages arising out of two motor vehicle accidents proceeded before a jury over the course of thirteen days in August 2011....
25 Apr Stewart v. Postnikoff
This case concerns false imprisonment and medical malpractice....
17 Apr Vander Maeden v. Condon
[1] The plaintiff, Rudolphus (Rudy) Vander Maeden launched two lawsuits as a result of his involvement in two motor vehicle accidents. As he was entitled to do, Mr. Vander Maeden chose to have his actions tried by a judge and jury. With the consent of all parties, both actions were tried at the same time....