25 Feb Hall-Smith v. Yamelst

Posted at 00:00h in Motor Vehicle Accident

             Following the trial of this action and judgment rendered (Hall-Smith v. Yamelst, 2015 BCSC 1640 (Hall-Smith)), costs were ordered to follow the event, except if either party wanted to speak to the matter (at para. 77). The defendants seek to deny the plaintiff her costs for several reasons including: (a) because she should have accepted an offer to settle made on January 13, 2015 (Rule 9-1(5)); (b) because she recovered a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court (Rule 14-1(10)); and (c) in the alternative, the plaintiff should be denied her disbursements related to that part of her claim that was unsuccessful (Rule 14-1(15)).Facts...

Read More

20 Jan Arletto v. Kin

Posted at 00:00h in Motor Vehicle Accident

             The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 13, 2010. The defendants admitted liability for the accident. The trial was for assessment of damages.Facts...

Read More

11 Sep Hall-Smith v. Yamelst

Posted at 00:00h in Motor Vehicle Accident

             The plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 25, 2009. Liability has been admitted. The plaintiff claims non-pecuniary damages, past wage loss, loss of housekeeping capacity, loss of future earning capacity, costs of future care, and special damages.Facts(a) Circumstances of the accident...

Read More

19 Aug MacDonald v. Joseph

Posted at 00:00h in Motor Vehicle Accident

             The plaintiff was injured on January 9, 2011 in a head on collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant, Julia Joseph (“Joseph”), and owned by the defendant, Joseph Titian. Liability was not an issue in this Rule 15-1 trial because the third party acknowledged that Joseph caused the accident which resulted in significant material damage to both vehicles. Neither defendant took any part in this litigation. The issues are: the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the accident, whether the plaintiff had recovered from his injuries by the summer of 2012, what is an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages, what is the proper method for calculation of past wage loss, whether the plaintiff established his claim for diminished future earning capacity and how to calculate that loss, and whether the plaintiff established his claim for cost of future care and how that loss is to be calculated.Non-Pecuniary Damages...

Read More

22 Oct Ranjbar v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines

Posted at 00:00h in Uncategorised

             The plaintiff, Jafar Jasem Zadeh Ranjbar (Ranjbar), the chief cook on the vessel “Iran Mazandaran” (the vessel), fell from a gangway owned and operated by the defendant, Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. (PRG), when he boarded the vessel as it was docked in Prince Rupert on the night of October 26, 2009. He fractured his right femur. The plaintiff claims in negligence against PRG and the defendant, the owner of the vessel, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). The in rem claim against The Owners and All Others Interested in The Ship (And/Or Other Property) was not served....

Read More

06 May Moore v. Briggs

Posted at 00:00h in Other

             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....

Read More

29 Apr Pang v. Dhalla

Posted at 00:00h in Motor Vehicle Accident

           The plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident of April 13, 2007 that is said to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, Shenul Dhalla. The trial proceeded under Rule 15-1....

Read More

12 Apr Ferrier v. Johnscross Properties (B.C.) Ltd.

Posted at 00:00h in Uncategorised

             The defendant, Johnscross Properties (B.C.) Ltd. (“Johnscross” or the “defendant”), has applied for judgment against the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 18A. Prior to hearing the application, counsel for the plaintiff advised that the action was to be dismissed by consent against the defendants, Jeff Queen, 611032 B.C. Ltd., Ploutos Enterprises Ltd., and John Doe doing business as Penticton Tile & Marble. A consent dismissal order is in circulation and will be entered in due course. The remaining defendants, James Palanio and 62-431 Realty Ltd., have not joined in this application....

Read More