02 Oct Henry v. H.M.T.Q.

             In these proceedings the plaintiff, Mr. Henry seeks damages against the City of Vancouver (“the City”), William Harkema, Marilyn Sims and others (“the City defendants”), for his convictions in March of 1983 of 10 sexual offences involving eight different complainants, and his imprisonment thereafter. Mr. Henry alleges that the City is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Mr. Harkema and Ms. Sims and other members of the Vancouver City Police in their investigation and conduct in their investigation of a number of sexual assaults in the City....

Read More

18 Nov Wotherspoon v. Hameluck

             In the late evening of July 27, 2009, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries when he was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle that was at that time owned and operated by the defendant. The collision occurred in the intersection of Austin Avenue and Gatineau Place in Burnaby, British Columbia. Pursuant to the order of the Registrar, dated March 28, 2014, the determination of liability for the collision was ordered to be heard separately from the assessment of damages. These reasons for judgment will therefore address only the liability issues in the case.Background...

Read More

26 Aug Walker v. Leung

             This case arises as a result of a motor vehicle collision that occurred in the intersection of West 41st Avenue and Oak Street in the City of Vancouver on May 26, 2010....

Read More

25 Aug Matyash v. Aulakh

             On January 2, 2006, a motor vehicle accident occurred between two vehicles at what I will call the south end of the Pattullo Bridge in Surrey, British Columbia. One of the vehicles was a silver 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier driven by Gurtej Aulakh (the “Aulakh Vehicle”), and the other vehicle was a blue 2000 Pontiac Grand Am driven by Tatyana Matyash (the “Matyash Vehicle”)....

Read More

19 Feb Keller v. Pearson

             On April 12, 2013, Mr. Justice Smart, now retired, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants in oral reasons for judgment following a summary trial. The defendants seek an order that the plaintiff pay them double costs from the date of their offer of settlement, made on February 27, 2013, pursuant to Rule 9-1(5)(b) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 [the Rules]. Given the retirement of the summary trial judge, I will exercise my jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 23-1(10) and personally deal with the defendants’ application.Background...

Read More