IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20130426

Docket: M103473

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Nicholas Leng Wai
Heng

Plaintiff

And

Kelly Ann
Anutooshkin and Sean P. Mahoney

Defendants

Before:
District Registrar Cameron

Oral Reasons for Decision
on Costs

[1]            
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks double costs for the preparation and
attendance on this assessment of disbursements consequent upon the settlement
of this personal injury action.

[2]            
On February 13, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel delivered an offer to settle costs,
which in this case is disbursements only, for $12,424.80. Before this
assessment, counsel for the defendants accepted all of the disbursements
claimed by the plaintiffs save for three. Those three were: The invoice of Dr.
B. De Freitas, a psychiatrist who counselled the Plaintiff for a medical report
in the amount of $1,532. The defendant conceded that it was proper to obtain
the report and did not take any objection to the fee charged for the report
that was in keeping with the BCMA guidelines, but rather said the report was
not helpful and of little value. For reasons that I gave earlier, I did not
accede to those submissions and I allowed the cost for the report in full.

[3]            
The second invoice that was put in issue was for a mediation
cancellation fee.  I concluded that the cancellation fee was made known in
advance to the adjuster and the e-mail correspondence that was in evidence made
clear that the adjuster did not object to paying the fee and I allowed it.

[4]            
The last disbursement in question was for a cancellation fee for Dr.
Yip, who was to testify at the trial on November 6, 2012. Dr. Yip was promptly
notified of the settlement of the trial on November 1, 2012. Again, Mr.
Goldberg for the defendant did not quarrel with the fact that a cancellation fee
was charged by Dr. Yip, nor did he quarrel with Plaintiff’s counsel having paid
that fee in the sum of $1,922 on November 2, 2012. The issue that the defendant
raised was that Dr. Yip after being paid by Plaintiff’s counsel was able on
short notice to rebook 40 percent of his day on November 6 to see patients.
Having found that this was a proper disbursement that was reasonable as to
amount and properly paid by Plaintiff’s counsel I held that if there was any
issue about the fact that Dr. Yip may have been overcompensated, that in the
prevailing circumstances that was a matter for ICBC to take up with Dr. Yip
directly.

[5]            
In the result, with the offer to settle being made in a timely way, I
award the Plaintiff double costs for tariff items 29 and 30 for preparation and
attendance.

[6]            
Tariff item 29 for one half day or less amounts to one unit and doubled
is allowed at two units. Tariff item 30 for one half or less amounts to two units
and doubled is allowed at four units for a total of six units at Scale B of
$660.

[7]            
Are there any disbursements being claimed for the assessment, Mr.
Orr-Ewing, other than the $80 filing fee?

[8]            
MR. ORR-EWING: Mr. Registrar, I don’t believe so. There were no — there
was no fees incurred by talking to Mr. Yip — Dr. Yip, the expert.

[9]            
THE REGISTRAR: $80 will be allowed for the filing fee, such that the
result will be the Plaintiff will recover the costs of this assessment in the
sum of $740. I take it, then, if a certificate is necessary, it would be for $12,424.80;
is that right?

[10]        
MR. ORR-EWING: Yes. I will say in addition, and then your — the order
you have made today.

[11]        
THE REGISTRAR: Well, that would have to be an order for costs that you
would have to draw up separately.

[12]        
No objection to that, Mr. Goldberg?

[13]        
MR. GOLDBERG: None.

[14]        
THE REGISTRAR: All right. So the certificate, if one is necessary, will be
for $12,424.80.

“District
Registrar Cameron”