On June 13, 2011, I made a ruling on a voir dire that a portion of the expert evidence the plaintiff wished to introduce in a personal injury case was inadmissible. Reasons for my decision were to follow. These are my reasons for the ruling....
The defendants apply to strike this action pursuant to Rule 9-5 or alternatively to have it dismissed pursuant to Rule 9-7....
The defendants apply for dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 9 7(2)....
The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk adjacent to a commercial building owned by the defendant, New Orient Enterprises Ltd. (New Orient). One of the tenants in the building is the defendant, Donna Jodoin....
In this summary trial application pursuant to Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Rules, the defendant seeks to have the action dismissed on the basis that it was not commenced within the two-year limitation period provided for a personal injury action by s. 3(2)(a) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266.EVIDENCE...
The defendant, Capital Health Region (CHR) applies for an order pursuant to Rule 9-7 dismissing the plaintiffs claim against it. The plaintiffs oppose the application. The co-defendant, Kerri-Lea Dutrisac (Dutrisac) takes no position. I must note here that more recently, the plaintiffs have consented to a dismissal of their action against the defendant Crown as well as the five personal defendants who are employees of the CHR, Ivanka Lupenec, Diane Hart, Shelly Harnadek, Mary-Jane Kellington, and Marcia L. Thorneycroft, on the basis that in the event the Court finds any of the personal defendants at fault, the CHR will be vicariously liable for their negligence. ...
The defendants, the Capital Health Region (CHR) and Ms. Kerri-Lea Dutrisac (Dutrisac) jointly apply pursuant to Rule 12-6(5)(i) and (ii) to set aside the Notice Requiring Trial By Jury filed by the Plaintiffs on November 17, 2005. 2.0 Background:...
At a Trial Management Conference (TMC) on March 31, 2011, I made an order adjourning the trial in this matter, which had been set for May, 2, 2010. I indicated that I would provide written reasons because the application raised a procedural question about the circumstances under which a judge at a TMC may hear and rule upon a contested adjournment application....
After a trial on the issue of liability only, I found the defendant James Martin to be 70% at fault for the accident in which the plaintiff was injured. I dismissed the action as against the defendant MacNutt Enterprises Ltd. I found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent that she was 30% at fault for the accident. There is no dispute that the successful defendant is entitled to its costs, but several issues relating to costs have arisen.The applications...
The parties bring cross-applications in this personal injury action. Following a nearly full day hearing, both applications were dismissed with written reasons to follow. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs with respect to the applications.The Applications...