19 Apr Manoharan v. Kaur

             On July 13, 2010 the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Fraser Street and 41st Avenue in Vancouver. The plaintiff’s vehicle was moving slowly west on 41st Avenue in the dedicated left turn lane. The front of her vehicle was about 10 to 12 feet back from the entrance to the intersection. The defendant's vehicle emerged from a small shopping centre adjacent to the north east corner of 41st Avenue and Fraser Street. The defendant drove south across the westbound lanes on 41st Avenue towards the left turn lane where the plaintiff's vehicle was proceeding slowly westbound. It appears the defendant intended to drive to the front of the left turn lane to travel south on Fraser Street. In doing so the defendant did not manage to place her vehicle at the head of the queue to turn left. Instead, the left front of her vehicle collided with the right front of the plaintiff's vehicle....

Read More

12 Apr Margison v. British Columbia

             The plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he was assaulted by the third party, a fellow inmate at the North Fraser Pretrial Centre. He alleges the Province failed to take reasonable care to prevent the assault....

Read More

03 Nov Bayfield v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation)

             Closing submissions in this trial were partially heard on June 12, 2015. During the submissions of the defendant the plaintiff objected that the defendant was not entitled to argue that if the plaintiff's injuries were caused or contributed to by faulty maintenance of the Inland Island Highway that cannot be the basis for the defendant's liability....

Read More

10 Nov Barta v. DaSilva

             These are reasons for judgment assessing damages for injuries the plaintiff suffered in a car accident.  Liability is not in issue.  The plaintiff alleges headaches and soft tissue injuries to his left shoulder, neck, and back.  His most serious complaint is of a mild traumatic brain injury which he asserts has destroyed his capacity to earn an income, trading securities on his own account, and has caused him to lose the capital he had accumulated and invested in the stock market.  His lost income from the date of the accident until trial is alleged to be in excess of $1,000,000, and he further alleges that in the future he will lose in excess of $850,000.  The loss of capital is said to be more than $4,000,000. ...

Read More

24 Oct Griffith v. Larsen

             Damages were assessed in this action in reasons indexed at 2014 BCSC 1687. The plaintiff had suffered injuries in three accidents. On September 5, 2014 I assessed damages at $85,159. The plaintiff had served a formal offer to settle on March 25, 2014 for $85,000. Replying on Rule 9-1(5)(b) the plaintiff now seeks double costs from the date of the service of the offer. I am not persuaded an award of double costs is appropriate....

Read More

05 Sep Griffith v. Larsen

             The plaintiff suffered injuries when her car was struck from behind in three separate accidents on December 14, 2010, February 3, 2011 and September 20, 2011. None of the collisions ought to be characterized as violent. The plaintiff described the first impact as moderate, the second as “a nudge” and the third as moderate. Nevertheless the plaintiff complains of serious and partially disabling injuries.Plaintiff’s Background...

Read More

30 Jun Riswold v. Goldsmith

             On December 12, 2009 the plaintiff was a passenger in her husband’s pickup truck when it was struck by another vehicle driven by the defendant, Riley Goldsmith.  Liability is admitted by Mr. Goldsmith and Gas Link Industries Ltd.  The action has been discontinued against Michael Riswold and Yellowhead Road & Bridge (North Peace) Ltd.  At the time of the accident the plaintiff was 51 years old, leading an active life with her family and friends and was employed. ...

Read More

15 Aug Gulbrandsen v. Mohr

             In reasons indexed at 2013 BCSC 959, I awarded the plaintiff in this personal injury action costs up to the date of the remaining defendant’s offer to settle, and double costs to the defendant thereafter. For the reasons I will describe below, I have concluded the award of double costs to the defendant ought to be reconsidered....

Read More