Roberts v. Wilson
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's credibility and factual findings were supported by expert and other evidence and no palpable and overriding error was demonstrated; given the medical findings of no clinical significance and no permanent disability, the $20,000 non-pecuniary damages award was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2000 BCCA 240
- Parties
- Plaintiff (appellant): Peter Warren Roberts; Defendant (respondent): Glenn Nevil Willson
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Non Pecuniary Damages, Credibility Findings, Standard of Appellate Review, Costs
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Warren Roberts
Plaintiff (appellant)
Glenn Nevil Willson
Defendant (respondent)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in findings of credibility and fact (palpable and overriding error)
- 2 Whether the $20,000 award for non-pecuniary damages was inordinately low
- 3 Whether any error was made on the question of costs
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's credibility and factual findings were supported by expert and other evidence and no palpable and overriding error was demonstrated; given the medical findings of no clinical significance and no permanent disability, the $20,000 non-pecuniary damages award was not inordinately low, and no error was shown on costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No error shown on the question of costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2000 BCCA 240 Citation: Roberts v. Willson Date: 20000331 2000 BCCA 240 Docket: CA022327 Registry: Vancouver COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Southin March 31, 2000 The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury Vancouver, B.C. BETWEEN: PETER WARREN ROBERTS PLAINTIFF (APPELLANT) AND: GLENN NEVIL WILLSON DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT) M.R.V. Storrow, Q.C. and J. Lysyk appearing for the Appellant R.K. Hartshorne and K.G. Mehl appearing for the Respondent [1] NEWBURY, J.A.: In this appeal the plaintiff contested the damages awarded to him by Mr. Justice Cohen in a judgment pronounced in August of 1996. Why it has taken five years to reach this court is unknown. [2] Mr. Storrow has said all that could be said in support of the appellant; but as counsel conceded, it is necessary to show palpable error on the trial judge's part in reaching the findings of credibility and fact that he did. In my view, counsel has not succeeded in doing so. There was expert and other evidence to support the trial judge's findings and he carefully and exhaustively reviewed that evidence, reaching findings of fact as he was entitled to do. Given the very limited scope for appellate intervention, I conclude the appeal on the main issue must be dismissed. [3] As for whether the award of $20,000 in non-pecuniary damages was inordinately low, the trial judge found that the disc problem complained of by the appellant was of "no clinical significance" and that the appellant had no permanent disability. In light of that, it seems to me the appeal on that point must also be dismissed. No error has, in my view, been shown on the question of costs. [4] I would dismiss the appeal. [5] SOUTHIN, J.A. I agree and would add only this. However one views the jurisdiction of this court now on questions of fact, the traditional view that appellate courts do not interfere with findings of credibility except in limited circumstances looms large to me in this case which was about credibility. The learned judge has not been shown to have erred when he did not accept the plaintiff's evidence. As to the other matters, I agree with my colleague. [6] RYAN, J.A. I agree with my colleagues, Madam Justice Southin and Madam Justice Newbury. [7] SOUTHIN, J.A. The appeal is dismissed. "The Honourable Madam Justice Southin" "The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury"