Canada Case Law

Zakrzewska v. Klein

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court accepted liability and, on the balance of probabilities, found the Accident caused chronic myofascial pain, persistent post‑traumatic headaches, concussion syndrome with symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury, moderate PTSD and major depressive disorder, and aggravated pre‑existing episodic migraines; the plaintiff's credibility was generally accepted and supported by lay and expert evidence; the defendant proved some mitigation failure but not to the extent argued, resulting in a 20% discount for mitigation; damages were assessed on accepted principles (including use of minimum wa…

Source excerpt

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Credibility and reliability
• Concussion/mild traumatic brain injury
• Psychiatric injury (ptsd, major depressive disorder)

Read case analysis

Ayrheart v. Alexander

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judgment awarding damages after a motor vehicle collision caused a wrist fracture, chronic pain, and aggravated PTSD. Liability was admitted.

• Causation
• Failure to mitigate
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past wage loss
• Loss of future earning capacity
• Cost of future care

Read case analysis

Mudhar v. Chawla

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

A BC Supreme Court damages decision arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident, addressing causation, divisible injuries, mitigation, and multiple heads of damages.

• Causation
• Divisibility of damages
• Failure to mitigate
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past income loss
• Future income loss

Read case analysis

Travis v. Cosford

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rear-end motor vehicle case where the plaintiff proved chronic mild neck and back injuries and monthly headaches, but not mental injury or future care losses.

• Whiplash
• Headaches
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Causation

Read case analysis

Wei v. Ahmad

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded Ms. Wei $505,829.66 for knee injuries from an MVA, including future income loss, non-pecuniary damages, housekeeping loss, care, and special damages.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future loss of income-earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Loss of housekeeping capacity
• Special damages
• Causation

Read case analysis

Matanagh v. Lanctot

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the plaintiff proved only temporary physical and psychological aggravation from the collision, awarding $97,641.40 and dismissing future care and housekeeping claims.

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future care
• Housekeeping capacity
• Credibility assessment
• Costs

Read case analysis

Thompson v. Ballantyne

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded damages after a rear-end collision caused chronic neck, back and anxiety injuries, but rejected an adverse inference and assessed future loss on a capital asset basis.

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

Read case analysis

Chu v. Brammer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the collision caused the plaintiff’s neck, back, right shoulder and knee injuries, plus depression, and awarded $454,335.56 in damages.

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care costs
• Housekeeping
• In-trust claim

Read case analysis

Rebman v. Cheong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

British Columbia Supreme Court motor vehicle injury trial awarding Rebman $704,981 after finding Cheong fully liable and accepting chronic neuropathic pain from the collision.

• Liability
• Causation
• Contributory negligence
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past and future loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care

Read case analysis

Stanton v. Stanton et al.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Defendants failed to prove adverse possession because occupation of the Fish House was consistent with the owners’ intended use and was permissive; prior owners (and Stanley) had communicated permission to use the Fish House so possession was not adverse. Although a prescriptive easement by 25 years' uninterrupted use would have arisen, defendants lack a dominant tenement because they did not establish possessory title, so the easement can only be used temporarily to remove the Fish House. Proprietary estoppel failed because required elements (mistake as to rights, landowner’s knowledge of th…

Source excerpt

• Adverse possession
• Prescriptive easement
• Proprietary estoppel
• Trespass to land
• Nuisance
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis