IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20160203

Docket: M98641

Registry:
Kelowna

Between:

Wendy Squire

Plaintiff

And

Kurt D. Siemens

Defendant

Before:
Master Wilson

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In
Chambers

[1]            
THE COURT: This is an application to adjourn a trial set in this
personal injury action for April 11, 2016, for three weeks with a jury. There
is a concurrent application to transfer the proceeding to Vancouver. By the
time this trial is heard, if it proceeds as scheduled, it will have been five
years since the subject accident.

[2]            
I am told that in October 2010, before the accident, the plaintiff
suffered a concussion while playing hockey and suffered from the usual symptoms.
There was a gradual return to work that followed. The accident that is in issue
here occurred on April 12, 2011, and it has been described as a relatively
low-impact collision involving the scraping of the plaintiff’s car by the
defendant who was backing out of his driveway. Liability is in issue. There are
conflicting opinions medically and that is not unusual.

[3]            
The test in an application to adjourn is the interests of justice, and
whether or not the interests of justice require that the trial be adjourned.

[4]            
Each party has had medical experts see the plaintiff. I understand there
have been three experts on each side. The defendant has had Dr. Dost, a
neurologist, Dr. Milanese, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Laidlow, a
physiatrist. The plaintiff has seen Dr. Cameron who is a neurologist and
Drs. Miller and Pirolli, who I understand are neuropsychologists.

[5]            
In my view, there is no reason in this case to adjourn this trial. The primary
basis that the plaintiff argues is a change of counsel which occurred in August
of 2015. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant and asked for
both an adjournment and a change of venue, and the defendant indicated promptly
that he would not agree. I am not satisfied that much has been done in the
intervening time. I have been directed to some emails whereby the plaintiff’s
new lawyer sought to obtain additional medical evidence from some other doctors
and was told those doctors were not available. Those, presumably, are not the
only doctors who would have been able to see the plaintiff and there is nothing
before me that indicates a need for any additional experts, as it seems that
each party has had an opportunity to have her seen by their doctors of choice.

[6]            
The fact that there are conflicting medical opinions is not altogether
unusual and, indeed, it is part of the reason we have trials. While the
evidence may appear to be potentially complex, it would seem to me that the
issues relate primarily to causation and I have not seen or been directed to
anything in the existing medical reports that indicate that a further
assessment of the plaintiff is required in order to properly present or determine
her case.

[7]            
This application is made late in the day and the plaintiff has had
notice of the defendant’s position on an adjournment for nearly five months. There
is nothing that suggests that the case is going to change or that any further
experts should be obtained in order to properly evaluate the plaintiff’s claim.
Therefore, an adjournment would appear to serve no purpose and the application
to adjourn is dismissed.

[8]            
The plaintiff also applied for a change of venue. I do not need to
decide that on the basis that I am dismissing the application to adjourn the
trial. However, there is nothing about this case that ties it to Vancouver at
all. The plaintiff does not live there, the defendant does not live there, and
of the six doctors to whom I was referred, it appears that four of them
practice in the Kelowna area, one is from Ontario, and only one is from
Vancouver. The plaintiff herself lives in Prince George, and so any lay
witnesses as to the plaintiff’s condition will, presumably, be either in Prince
George where she lives now or in Kelowna where she resided at the time, and so
I would have dismissed that application in any event.

[9]            
So both applications are dismissed.

[10]        
MR. YEREMA:  My Lord, may we have an order as to costs?

[11]        
THE COURT:  Yes, costs of the application to the defendant.

[12]        
MR. YEREMA:  In any event of the cause?

[13]        
THE COURT:  No.

“Master
S. Wilson”