Welcome to the Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota personal injury case law database.

Our firm has collected and organized a number of personal injury court decisions in a publicly-accessible database, for use as a resource by law students, other lawyers and firms, as well as the general public. This database will include some of our firm’s results, as well as results from many other lawyers. For information about results from this firm only, please click here.

The British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal are the sources for all of the cases in this database; these cases are not official versions of the material produced, and were not made in affiliation with or the endorsement of the British Columbia Superior Courts.




Schmidt v. Hawkins

             On August 25, 2005, Mrs. Schmidt was driving her car on the highway between Sparwood and Invermere, British Columbia. Mrs. Schmidt’s husband was the front-seat passenger in the car; their two young children were in the back seat....

Read More

Sandher v. Hogg

             The plaintiff, Kirandeep Sandher, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 5, 2006. The defendant has admitted liability....

Read More

476605 B.C. Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

           This is an appeal from the decision of a Master dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The Reasons of the Master are indexed at 2008 BCSC 777. The plaintiff’s truck was written off following an accident. The plaintiff contended that the defendant corporation did not offer appropriate compensation. The Master concluded that the claim was in substance a coverage dispute. As such, the claim had to be pursued through the procedure provided in the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231. The court did not have jurisdiction.Facts...

Read More

Kalashnikoff v. Martens

             This is an application brought by the plaintiff for an order that the trial in this action proceed beginning October 4, 2010 for eight days, and costs.Background...

Read More

Jones v. Ma

             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....

Read More

Mudrie v. Grove

             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....

Read More

Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang

             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....

Read More

Mudry v. Minhas

             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....

Read More

Tomei v. Kelly

           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....

Read More

Power v. White

             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....

Read More

Craig v. Smith

             The plaintiff applies for production of documents over which the third party ICBC claims litigation privilege....

Read More

Easton v. Cooper

             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...

Read More

Contact us today to find the best lawyer for your case.