IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20130606

Docket: M100550

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Natalia Repnicki

Plaintiff

And

616696 B.C. Ltd.
now known as 0616696 B.C. Ltd.,
Jay Warren Puder and Bozena Repnicki

Defendants

Before:
District Registrar Cameron

Oral Reasons for
Decision

[1]            
This appointment concerns one disbursement claimed for by the Plaintiff
following the settlement of a personal injury claim.

[2]            
The parties have settled all issues in respect of costs and
disbursements save for a disbursement claimed by the plaintiff for an MRI
examination that was done by Canadian Magnetic Imaging on July 17, 2010.  The
cost of the examination including interest charges was $3,737.37.

[3]            
In support of the claim for that disbursement, Plaintiff’s counsel
relies on Affidavit evidence filed by a case manager at the Plaintiff’s
counsel’s law firm .The history delineated from that Affidavit is that the
motor vehicle accident occurred on March 18, 2008.  The Plaintiff initially complained
of some discomfort in her back and neck and was followed by her family
physician, Dr. Duchowska, over a period of time.  Some two years later, in May 2010,
and the evidence is not entirely clear on this point, but either based on a
request from Plaintiff’s counsel or the Plaintiff herself, Dr. Duchowska was
asked to confirm that an MRI examination be done.  Dr. Duchowska agreed to
do so and signed a requisition for a medical resonance imaging examination to
be done in the public healthcare system on or about May 12, 2010.

[4]            
Before that examination could take place, the Plaintiff and her counsel
asked Dr. Duchowska to help accelerate the obtaining of the MRI and, in July of
2010, Dr. Duchowska signed a requisition for an MRI with a private healthcare
provider, CMI.  That examination was done on July 17, 2010.  At that time,
there was not yet a trial date in the action.  I am advised by counsel that a
trial date was obtained in August of 2011 for February 4, 2013.

[5]            
While the medical evidence that I was referred to satisfies me that
obtaining an MRI examination in this case was a reasonable step to take in the
Plaintiff’s interest and to assist with a determination of whether or not there
was a causal link to her neck, upper back, and lower back injuries and the
motor vehicle accident, I am not satisfied that it was reasonable to incur the
additional expense to have the MRI examination done in the private healthcare
system.  I may have been persuaded it was reasonable to do so if, in fact,
there was evidence that there was going to be an ongoing and significant delay
in having the MRI examination done in the public healthcare system, but that
evidence was not before me.

[6]            
For these reasons, the disbursement will be disallowed.

[7]            
Anything else, counsel?

[8]            
MS. SIM:  Costs, Your Honour.

[9]            
THE COURT:  All right.  What is your position on costs, Ms. Sim?

[10]        
MS. SIM:  That costs for this appointment should be made to the
defendants.

[11]        
THE COURT:  Are you submitting, then, that tariff items 29 and 30,
preparation for and attendance at the assessment should be to the defendants?

[12]        
MS. SIM:  Yes.

[13]        
THE COURT:  Three units?

[14]        
MS. SIM:  Yes.

[15]        
THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Klein?

[16]        
MR. KLEIN:  Well, given the fact that this was a hotly contested topic,
we obviously oppose the costs.  We also did not receive anything in terms of
materials from the defendants either.  So we are not sure what the preparation
was.

[17]        
THE COURT:  The defendants were successful on this assessment.  The only
issue was the entitlement to the disbursement for the MRI.  Tariff items 29 and
30 apply and, for a one-half-day assessment, they total three units.  Costs,
then, to the defendants in the sum of $330.

“District Registrar Cameron”