Leach v. Jesson

Leach v. Jesson

Even if the hospital and ambulance records might contain material relevant to assessing damages, production was properly refused because, given the slight importance of the issue to the damages assessment and the privacy intrusion, disclosure would be disproportionate under Rule 1-3(2); the master’s balancing was entitled to deference and was not clearly wrong.

Citation
2016 BCSC 591
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Jamie Leach; Respondent / Defendant: Hayley Jesson; Respondent / Defendant: Linda Jesson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Master Order in Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Appeal Pending Damages Assessment (pre Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Proportionality, Relevance, Medical Records, Discovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Privacy Personal Injury Production of Documents Proportionality Relevance Medical Records +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamie Leach

Appellant / Plaintiff

Hayley Jesson

Respondent / Defendant

Linda Jesson

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Master Order in Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Appeal Pending Damages Assessment (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's hospital and ambulance records are relevant to damages when liability is admitted
  2. 2 Whether production of third‑party medical records is proportionate under Rule 1-3(2)
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for appeal from master's interlocutory order

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the hospital and ambulance records might contain material relevant to assessing damages, production was properly refused because, given the slight importance of the issue to the damages assessment and the privacy intrusion, disclosure would be disproportionate under Rule 1-3(2); the master’s balancing was entitled to deference and was not clearly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Master's order refusing production of hospital and ambulance records upheld
  • Costs to the defendants in any event of the cause