Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed most of a defence application for a neuropsychological IME and brain MRI, finding the defendant had not shown the steps were necessary.
Trial reasons on damages after the 2007 and 2008 motor vehicle accidents, addressing causation, credibility, mitigation, and quantification of loss.
The court dismissed a defence application for additional FCE and C-FCE examinations, finding they were not necessary and would amount to impermissible bolstering.
The court found the rear-end collision caused soft tissue injuries, worse migraines, and an adjustment disorder, but no concussion or mild traumatic brain injury.
The court found the plaintiff partly credible, accepted some accident-related soft tissue injury, and awarded damages in part while dismissing future earning loss.
The court found the plaintiff suffered an MTBI and related neurocognitive and psychiatric injury, awarding damages for pain, income loss and future care.
Late expert reports were refused because there was no explanation or evidence of exceptional circumstances to excuse missing the mandatory Rule 55.03(1) deadline despite some probative value and modest prejudice; opinions in six treating physician narratives were admitted because the narratives and underlying materials had been disclosed well before the Finish Date and the defendant had sufficient information and time to prepare, and the treating-narrative regime requires a fairness/preparation test rather than an exceptional-circumstances test.
Source excerpt
A British Columbia Supreme Court judgment on damages from three rear-end collisions, awarding compensation for pain, reduced earning capacity, housekeeping loss and special damages.
The court granted a defendant’s application under Rule 7-6 for a physiatry IME in a motor vehicle injury case involving disputed physical and mental symptoms.
The court found exceptional circumstances: the 21 chart-note TPNs were disclosed in April 2016 and both parties reasonably believed prior jurisprudence precluded reliance on opinions in those notes until the Brown decision changed the law in late 2020; the Plaintiff identified the TPNs before the Finish Date, and the Defendant was provided sufficient prior disclosure and will have the opportunity to obtain rebuttal reports and prepare for cross-examination; accordingly the Plaintiff satisfied CPR 55.14(6) and the TPNs are admissible at trial subject to directions on rebuttal timing and potent…
Source excerpt
Explore more
