Court Strikes Defence Jury Notice on Basis that Wage Loss Claim too "Complex"

In the recent decision of van Driesum v. Young, 2016 BCSC 2279, the court Court granted the plaintiff’s application to strike the defence jury notice on the basis that the wage loss claim was too “complex” for the jury.  The court said:

[1]             The Plaintiff applies to strike the jury.  The trial is scheduled to begin November 21 and to occupy 18 court days.  These relatively brief reasons will perhaps not do full justice to the able submissions from both sides I heard on Monday, but the imminence of the trial calls for a prompt decision.

[6]             The overall question is trial fairness, weighing the Defendant's presumptive right to a jury against the risk of unfairness to the Plaintiff by having a jury attempt to decide facts and answer questions which are too intricate or complex.  My conclusion is that this case should not proceed with a jury.

[9]             In the result, determining the Plaintiff's pre‑accident earning history will not be a straightforward exercise.  The complexity of that exercise, however, pales when it is compared with determining the Plaintiff's earnings, lost earnings, and diminished earning capacity post-accident.

The full decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2279/2016bcsc2279.html?resultIndex=1

Court Awards $110,000 non-pecuniary damages for Chronic Pain Syndrome

In the recent decision of Beaton v. Perkes, 2016 BCSC 2276, the court Court awarded the plaintiff $110,000 in non-pecuniary damages for Chronic Pain Syndrome caused by the car accident .  The court said:

19]         Each of the experts I have referred to accepts that Ms. Beaton now struggles with chronic pain syndrome. They provided the following opinions on her prognosis:

[59]         In the result, I consider that an award of $110,000 fairly compensates Ms. Beaton for her non-pecuniary losses.

The full decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2276/2016bcsc2276.html?resultIndex=1

 

Court grants Plaintiff's application to leave ICBC Medical Examination if forced to wait longer than 30 minutes for examination to begin

In the recent decision of Orr v. Pringle, 2015 BCSC 2644, the court granted the Plaintiff’s application to be allowed to leave ICBC’s Medical Examination if forced to wait longer than 30 minutes for the examination to begin.  The court also prohibited ICBC from conducting surveillance of the plaintiff during the exam.  The court said:

[2]             I will order that the plaintiff will be at liberty to leave if either examination does not proceed within 30 minutes, but I am not prepared to make the order that that is deemed to have satisfied the requirement to attend an IME. In other words, he can leave if he wants to after 30 minutes on these specific days, but there may be reasons for that delay that may justify the defendant in applying for a replacement date. I am not going to make any comment on whether they will get it or not, but I am not prepared to deem attendance.

 

[3]             As for surveillance, I agree that is not simply a matter of the plaintiff being potentially subject to surveillance while he is in a public place at a time chosen by the defendant or whenever they can find him. This is a matter where he is at a place at a time that has been ordered by the Court. It is a bit analogous to a plaintiff being under surveillance in the courthouse and that is not appropriate. So I will grant that condition.

The full decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2238/2016bcsc2238.html?resultIndex=1

Court Denies ICBC's request for Independent Medical Examination with Physiatrist

In the recent decision of Dippel v. Kraus, 2016 BCSC 2238, the court denied ICBC’s request for an Independent Medical Examination with a Physiatrist on the basis that the plaintiff had already been examined by an ICBC appointed Orthopaedic Surgeon.  The court said:

[1]            THE COURT:  This is an application by the defendant for the plaintiff to attend at the defendant's medical examination with Dr. Gabriel Hirsch, a physiatrist, on Monday next week.

[9]            Dr. Richardson, as an orthopedic surgeon, is a different speciality from Dr. Hirsch, who is a physiatrist; however, it is established by case law and not disputed that there is significant overlap between these two specialties.

[13]        In the absence of any evidence that Dr. Richardson would not be able to provide the evidence as to the plaintiff's rehabilitation, or alternatively any evidence from Dr. Hirsch as to what he could bring to the analysis, or that he could opine on something that Dr. Richardson could not, I am unable to conclude that the defendant has established on the evidence that a second medical examination with Dr. Hirsch is required in these circumstances.

The full decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2238/2016bcsc2238.html?resultIndex=1