Expert evidence not needed if common sense prevails.
On June 23, 2017, the BC Supremc Court considered the use, and overuse, of expert evidence in personal injury litigation. Truax v. Hyrb, 2017 BCSC 1052, was an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in which fault was at issue. The defendant brought an application seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit and argued that in failing to adduce expert engineering evidence an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff. In rejecting this argument, Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments about the role of expert evidence:...
read moreManulife pays 69 MILLION DOLLARS to shut down class action before trial.
After almost eight years of litigation, a securities class action against Canada’s largest life insurance company settled for $69 million. In Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund v Manulife Financial, 2017 ONSC 2669, the Ontario court approved the payment of honoraria to the representative plaintiffs, the payment of class counsel contingency-based legal fees, and the payment of a preliminary commission to a third-party litigation funder. Background Manulife Financial Corporation (“MFC”) is the largest life insurance company in Canada. In early 2004, MFC added several new...
read moreInsurers must “avoid” obscure terms.
On April 20, 2017, Mr. Justice Kent of the BC Supreme Court ruled that vehicle damage arising from a lessee’s arson does not fall within the “conversion exclusion” clause in an ICBC Autoplan Optional Policy, and an innocent lessor may be entitled to coverage. CIT Financial Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 641, involved a coverage dispute for the alleged arson of a leased vehicle. The Court was asked to interpret the insured plaintiff’s insurance policy and, in particular, whether coverage for the fire damage to the vehicle was excluded...
read moreSecond defence medical exam denied.
On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of BC denied the defence request for an medical examination by a vocational psychologist due to the fact that the defence had a previous medical examination by a defence psychiatrist (from whom they had no ordered a report). In Baxter v. Shelton, 2017 BCSC 953, Master Keighley wrote: [6] …counsel for the defence determined to have a vocational rehabilitation assessment done and scheduled an appointment for March 24, 2017, before Dr. Colleen Quee Newell,...
read moreInsurer irrelevant testing denied by court.
On December 16, 2016, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an application by an insurance company for an order compelling a disabled worker to undergo neuropsychological testing. The judge in Woolsey v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., [2016] O.J. No. 6497, 2016 ONSC 7617, found that neuropsychological or cognitive function had not been put at issue and no treatment providers or experts had recommended it. The claimant was a disabled employee who alleged that he was unable to work as an engineering analyst due to neuropathic chest pain...
read more
