20 May Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Husseinian

             THE COURT:  This is an application by the plaintiff Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the assessment of damages against Dawood Shahin Husseinian and Ahmad Ahmadi for insurance fraud.  The defendants have not appeared to the action and a default judgment has been registered against them.  As a result of the default judgment, the defendants are deemed to have admitted all of the allegations.  See Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Husseinian, 2008 BCSC 241....

Read More

19 May Poulton v. Inderbosch

             In this action the plaintiff Angela Victoria Poulton sues for damages for injuries which she suffered in a motor vehicle accident on January 27, 2006.  The defendant Brent Morris Inderbosch has admitted that he is solely responsible for the accident....

Read More

17 May Pham-Fraser v. Smith

             On March 15, 2010 I issued reasons awarding the plaintiff $412,198.53 for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred January 16, 2006....

Read More

14 May Brooks v. Gilchrist

             This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in two motor vehicle accidents, the first on January 31, 2006 and the second on February 2, 2007....

Read More

13 May Spencer v. Popham

             Melanie Spencer commenced her action in Supreme Court but then settled her claim for an amount within the Small Claim Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, is she entitled to costs in this Court? Was there “sufficient reason” for her to commence the claim in Supreme Court?Background...

Read More

13 May Spencer v. Horton

             As in Spencer v. Popham, 2010 BCSC 683, released concurrently with this decision (Victoria 09-2313), Melanie Spencer commenced her action in Supreme Court but settled her claim for an amount within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, is she entitled to costs in this Court? The test is whether there was “sufficient reason” for her to commence the claim in Supreme Court.Background...

Read More

12 May Beazley v. Suzuki Motor Corporation

             This ruling concerns the admissibility of certain documents found in Exhibit 13 that the plaintiffs seek to rely on in this trial.  Exhibit 13 consists of six binders containing in excess of 400 individual documents. When the plaintiffs tendered Exhibit 13 as part of their case, by agreement of the parties it was admitted into evidence subject to the defendants’ right to challenge the admissibility of individual documents.  The defendants now submit that a number of the documents contained in Exhibit 13 are inadmissible and seek their removal from the Exhibit.BACKGROUND...

Read More

07 May C.G.H. v. N.M.H.

             THE COURT:  The plaintiff seeks an order for an interim sale of the family home in West Kelowna on Country Pines Drive. She seeks this order prior to trial pursuant to Rule 43 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 43 gives the court discretion to order an interim sale of the matrimonial home where it is necessary or expedient to do so. The court has considered many factors in determining necessity and expedience, including the factors set out in the Continuing Legal Education of B.C. Family Law Source Book at page 844. I am going to summarize some of those:(a)      whether a sale is apt to promote an early settlement;(b)      where a sale is apt to defeat a spouse’s claim for reapportionment;(c)      whether the sale is inevitable;(d)      whether the sale would put a spouse and children on the street pending resolution of the litigation;(e)      whether there is alterative accommodations available; and(f)       whether the proceeds would fall entirely to creditors....

Read More