Judge: 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 moreManulife tried to use maternity leave to reduce bonus, and lost.
On April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered Manulife to pay damages of over $140,000 to a recruiter of financial advisors in a wrongful dismissal suit. The decision is noteworthy in that the court refused to allow Manulife to use its employee’s maternity leave as a reason to reduce her bonus payment. In Sowden v. Manulife Canada Ltd., the court ruled that Manulife owes damages to former employee Janice Sowden after she was dismissed in a “corporate restructuring”. In an earlier decision the court ruled, after a summary trial, that Sowden was entitled to...
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 moreLife insurance claim denied for misrepresentations.
On March 3, 2015, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the denial of a widow’s application for life insurance benefits following the death of her husband, the insured, because the insured had materially misrepresented his medical history in his application for life and disability insurance. In Linden Estate v. CUMIS Life Insurance Co., an insured applied for life and disability insurance. The application included a supplementary health questionnaire to be completed over the telephone. The questionnaire included questions about the insured’s medical history. The insured was asked whether he...
read moreConsultation reports are not “expert reports”.
On February 3, 2015, the BC Court of Appeal released Reasons criticizing and restricting the practice of shoehorning physicians consultation reports into evidence as expert opinion. In Healey v. Chung the plaintiff was injured in a 2005 pedestrian/vehicle collision. At trial the plaintiff claimed it was a ‘catastrophic accident’ and sought damages between $485,000 and $1,037,000. The trial judge rejected much of the plaintiff’s evidence and awarded damages of just over $50,000. In the course of the trial the defendant introduced consultation reports of treating medical practitioners into...
read moreParties to a contract must be honest with each other.
In Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, the Supreme Court clearly stated that there is a duty to be honest in the performance of a contract. Mr. Bhasin, started an action after his relationship with Canadian American Financial Corp. (“Can-Am”) soured. Ultimately, Can-Am refused to renew the dealership agreement it had with Mr. Bhasin. Mr. Bhasin had acted as an enrollment director for Can-Am, which was in the business of marking education savings plans to investors (“ESPs”). Like all other enrollment directors associated with Can-Am, Mr. Bhasin acted like a small business...
read more
