In the important decision RAGUIN V. INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 2011 BCCA 482 (“RAGUIN”), released November 29, 2011, the Court of Appeal considered the Plaintiffs’ claim that  ICBC had an obligation to pay for massage therapy benefits under Part 7 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation (the “Regulation”).

On November 9, 2011, the Honourable Mr. Justice Williams of the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered his judgment in Paguio v. Fraser, 2011 BCSC 1519.

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently held that the number of visits to a doctor’s office does not determine the value of the Plaintiff’s personal injury claim. In Tarzwell v. Ewashina, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision in 2007 and suffered soft tissue injuries to the lower back and trapezius muscle.

Given the often expensive nature of legal proceedings, the question of whether one party will be responsible to pay the costs incurred by the other party can become highly contentious.

Problems with BC’s Graduated Licensing Program

A recent study of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s graduated licensing program has revealed a problem. Although the program appears to benefit 16-year-old drivers, it may inadvertently increase the number of accidents among 18-year-old drivers.

A common issue that arises in motor vehicle claims is whether to commence an action in BC Supreme Court or Provincial Court (also referred to as Small Claims Court).  In this province, the BC Supreme Court has broader authority and discretion than the Provincial Court.  Motor vehicle claims, however, can be heard by either level of court.  Claims for damages in Provincial Court, however, are limited to $25,000.  Persons who wish to commence an action should carefully consider the nature of thei

In DOBRE V. LANGLEY, 2011 BCSC 1315 (“DOBRE”), a decision released October 4, 2011, the Court considered how to apportion liability in a personal injury case where the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant while riding his bike in a cross-walk. The DOBRE decision provides an example of how compliance with the “rules of the road” can directly affect who is liable for a particular accident, and to what extent.

FARRANT V. LAKTIN, 2011 BCCA 336 (“FARRANT”), an August 2, 2011 judgment of Neilson J.A., underscores how causation is not an “either/or” proposition. The trial judge in FARRANT held that the Plaintiff’s pre-existing spinal degeneration was the cause of his ongoing pain, and that the whiplash he suffered in the accident at issue resolved within four months.

In the case of Gatzke v. Sidhu, 2011 BCSC 1214 (“Gatzke”), released on September 9, 2011, Saunders J. provided reasons on costs. In an earlier judgment on liability and quantum of damages (reported at 2011 BCSC 988), the Plaintiff was found to be 70% at fault and consequently received only 30% of the $31,500 awarded at trial.

In the case of SMAGH V. BUMBRAH, 2011 BCCA 281 (“SMAGH”), the Court considered an appeal by the Plaintiff of a trial decision in which a Supreme Court jury awarded the Plaintiff $2,000 for non-pecuniary damages and nothing for past loss of income, loss of future earning capacity, or cost of future care. The collision which gave rise to the proceedings was a rear-end collision that resulted in the Plaintiff claiming neck and back injuries.