Report must include “all actual instructions received by the expert”.
On October 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of BC addressed the scope of expert instructions that need to be disclosed to make expert evidence admissible. In short the Court noted that a “paraphrased summary of instructions” was insufficient. In Pinch v. Hofstee, 2015 BCSC 1887, Mr. Justice Burnyeat noted that Rule 11-6(1)(c) requires the following: [1] The parties presented a number of expert reports. While some of the expert reports attached the instructions that were provided to the expert by counsel, some of the expert reports merely provided a paraphrased summary of instructions. [2] Rule...
read moreSettlement documents from previous claim need not be produced.
On October 15, 2015, the BC Supreme Court addressed a request to produce documents relating to the settlement of a previous personal injury claim in the prosecution of a subsequent claim. In Gamble v. Brown, 2015 BCSC 1873, the plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision, brought a claim for damages and ultimately settled. She was then injured in a 2011 collision. In the current lawsuit the defendant requested broad production of the previous file information including “any mediation brief, settlement letter, file memo, communication or similar document”. The plaintiff agreed to produce...
read moreWorsening prognosis not enough to allow late DME.
On August 7, 2015, a master of the BC Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff’s failure to recover from injuries is not enough for a defendant to secure a late defence medical exam. In Dzumhur v. Davoody, 2015 BCSC 1656, the plaintiff was injured in a a collision and sued for damages. In the course of the lawsuit the plaintiff served an expert report opining that the plaintiff ought to recover provided the injuries are responsive to recommended treatments. The defendant did not obtain a defence medical report and as the deadline approached for exchanging expert evidence the plaintiff served an...
read moreSimple assertion of contemplated litigation doesn’t cut it.
On August 6, 2015, the BC Supreme Court effectively dismantled an ICBC claim for litigation privilege in Buettner v. Gatto. The plaintiff in that case was injured in a collision and advanced a claim for damages. The plaintiff retained counsel. Liability was initially admitted and then denied by ICBC. The plaintiff brought an application for production of various relevant documents and ICBC refused disclosure on the grounds that litigation was reasonably contemplated once the plaintiff retained counsel. The Court rejected this finding this position was based on little more than a bare...
read moreJudge: ICBC’s expert “careless” if not “deceptive”.
In Hendry v. Ellis, 2015 BCSC 1186, the plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. The defendant’s insurer retained a doctor who minimized the connection between the plaintiff’s complaints and the collision. At trial, through cross examination, the doctor made various admissions beyond the borders of the opinion contained in the report. In criticizing the physician’s opinion as “careless” if not outright “deceptive” Mr. Justice Jenkins provided the following reasons: [26] Expert evidence tendered at trial was that the duration of soft tissue pain is considered to be 12...
read moreThe “Standard of Proof” does not change for subjective injuries.
On April 16, 2015, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that the standard of proof does not change for a tort claim based on subjective soft tissue injuries. In Rabiee v. Rendleman, 2015 BCSC 595, the plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear end collision. The defendant admitted fault but disputed injury pointing in part to the fact that the collision was minor. In accepting the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Madam Justice Sharma provided the following comments about the standard of proof in low velocity impact prosecutions: [62] Given the...
read more
