Lapointe v. John Doe

Lapointe v. John Doe

The master refused to reopen or reconsider the prior decision because ICBC failed to show a miscarriage of justice or that the original decision misapplied the law on the record; the master concluded she had jurisdiction to reconsider prior to entry of the order but declined to do so and left costs to the parties if not agreed.

Citation
2015 BCSC 1742
Parties
Plaintiff: Isobel Lapointe; Defendant: John Doe; Defendant: Jane Doe; Defendant: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil; Negligence/insurance / Summary Judgment Decision; Reconsideration Application Prior to Entry of Formal Order
Outcome
Application to reconsider denied; original summary judgment reasoning upheld and remains for formal order entry; ICBC filed a notice of appeal.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Reconsideration, Striking Pleadings, Rule 9 6, Litigation in Slices, Admissibility of Hearsay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort/negligence Insurance Law Appellate/jurisdictional Law Summary Judgment Reconsideration Striking Pleadings Rule 9 6 +2 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isobel Lapointe

Plaintiff

John Doe

Defendant

Jane Doe

Defendant

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil; Negligence/insurance / Summary Judgment Decision; Reconsideration Application Prior to Entry of Formal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master misapplied the law in striking the Section 24 defence under Rule 9-6
  2. 2 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial on the plaintiff's efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver/owner
  3. 3 Whether reconsideration should be granted prior to entry of the formal order

Ratio Decidendi

The master refused to reopen or reconsider the prior decision because ICBC failed to show a miscarriage of justice or that the original decision misapplied the law on the record; the master concluded she had jurisdiction to reconsider prior to entry of the order but declined to do so and left costs to the parties if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Application to reconsider denied; original summary judgment reasoning upheld and remains for formal order entry; ICBC filed a notice of appeal.

Orders

  • Application to reconsider dismissed
  • If parties cannot agree on costs, liberty to address the master