The motor vehicle accident that is the subject of this personal injury action occurred at about 11:45 a.m. on December 18, 2007 in the 2500 block of Clarke Street in Port Moody, British Columbia. At that location, Clarke Street has two westbound lanes of traffic separated from the single eastbound lane by a double solid yellow line....
On May 5, 2010, I published reasons for judgment in this matter. They are indexed at 2010 BCSC 637. The case involves an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. I decided that the defendant Amarjit Minhas was at fault but I dismissed the action because the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered damages....
Michelle Danicek is a lawyer who was involved in two accidents, a fall in a nightclub late in the evening on April 5 or in the early hours of April 6, 2001, and a motor vehicle accident on June 29, 2002. These accidents led to three actions which have been consolidated for trial....
The defendant ICBC applies under Rule 18A for dismissal of the claim brought against it by the plaintiff under s. 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231....
This action for damages for personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident was conducted under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, B.C. Reg. 221/90, effective September 1, 1990, O.C. 1039/90. The Rule is headed Fast Track Litigation and was introduced in 1998 to provide a cost-effective process for trials that could be completed in two days. The plaintiff, Sarah Tomei, elected to proceed under Rule 66 in this case and the defendant did not object....
The plaintiff, Mr. Power, claims damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Sunday, September 10, 2006 on the Island Highway, when the vehicle being driven by him was struck from behind by the vehicle driven by the defendant, Mr. White. Both liability and quantum are in issue....
The defendants seek an order requiring the defendants to disclose certain documents over which privilege is claimed.Facts...
The defendants applied for two orders during the course of a Case Management Conference conducted under the former Rule 68(41). The first such order seeks to restrict the plaintiff to reliance on a single expert report. The second requires written summaries of evidence, for the witnesses which the plaintiff intends to call, that comply with Rule 68(31). The plaintiff, in turn, argues either: a) that by virtue of the application of s. 24-1(14) of the transitional provisions to the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 (the New Rules), she is no longer required to adhere to these limitations or restrictions or, b) that the proper application of the discretion which I have would allow the plaintiff to file two expert reports. The plaintiff accepts that the contents of the witness summaries that have been provided to the defendants do not conform with the requirements of the former Rules.Background...
The plaintiff applies for production of documents over which the third party ICBC claims litigation privilege....
The defendant and third party ICBC applies for an order dismissing the plaintiffs claim for want of prosecution....