Canada Case Law

Moise v. Black Top and Checker Cabs Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the Accident caused a mild traumatic brain injury and chronic low back and coccyx/pelvic pain resulting in a permanent partial disability that affects employment and mental health; accepted key expert evidence (Dr. Masri, Dr. Cameron, Louise Craig, vocational experts) and applied the earnings approach to quantify future loss. The court calculated without-Accident present value earnings at $1,716,266 and with-Accident present value earnings at $1,132,376, awarding future loss $583,890; awarded non-pecuniary damages $210,000; past loss $27,461; future cost of care $42,954; speci…

Source excerpt

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Housekeeping capacity
• Credibility assessment
• Mild traumatic brain injury

Read case analysis

Eberhardt v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the ICBC action in a hit-and-run claim, finding the plaintiff had not made all reasonable efforts to identify the unknown vehicle or driver under s. 24(5).

• Hit-and-run nominal defendant s.24
• Reasonable efforts to ascertain identity
• Summary dismissal under rule 9-7
• Investigation obligations of claimants
• Hit-and-run-claims
• Summary-trial

Read case analysis

Goode v. Finer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rear-end collision personal injury trial awarding $629,947.70 for chronic pain, lost earning capacity and future care.

• Causation
• Quantum of damages
• General damages
• Past and future loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

Liu v. Howes

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Personal injury damages trial. Liability was admitted and the court awarded damages for chronic back pain, housekeeping capacity, special damages and future care.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Housekeeping capacity damages
• Cost of future care
• Special damages
• Causation
• Personal-injury-damages

Read case analysis

Sawires v. Paris

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Motor vehicle accident case where the plaintiff proved chronic low-back injury and radicular symptoms, received damages for pain and modest future care, but no loss of future earning capacity.

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of future earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Special damages
• Credibility

Read case analysis

Raedwulf v. Kelly

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

La Cour accorde des dommages-intérêts à la demanderesse pour deux accidents de voiture, retenant des blessures permanentes, une perte de capacité de gain et des soins futurs.

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care
• Medical expert opinion assessment
• Credibility

Read case analysis

Bennett v. Leschuk

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial on damages only after an admitted-liability motor vehicle accident. The court found chronic neck-related injury, limited by credibility and mitigation issues, and awarded $501,933.

• Damages assessment
• Loss of earning capacity
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Mitigation
• Causation
• Credibility and evidence assessment

Read case analysis

Iampietro v. Leung

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the rear-end collision caused chronic accident-related injuries, thoracic outlet syndrome, and somatic symptom disorder, but not the C6-C7 disc herniation.

• Causation
• Damages
• Credibility assessment
• Medical evidence
• Somatic symptom disorder
• Thoracic outlet syndrome

Read case analysis

Matheos v. Scott

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the 2014 rear-end collision materially worsened the plaintiff’s pre-existing headaches and neck pain, awarded damages, and rejected future income loss.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Loss of housekeeping capacity
• Causation
• Crumbling skull doctrine

Read case analysis

Murphy v. Savoie

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The endorsement covers the spouse because at the time of the accident the described automobile was provided for the employee's regular use (it was available during business hours), and s.2 requires only that the employee be one for whose regular use the automobile is provided at the time of the accident; it does not require the employee to be physically on duty or in the vehicle at that precise moment.

Source excerpt

• Uninsured motorist coverage
• Opcf 44r family protection coverage endorsement
• Interpretation of insurance endorsements
• Temporal nexus for coverage
• Statutory accident benefits schedule (comparative jurisprudence)

Read case analysis