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.
On November 20, 2006, the plaintiff was driving her mother and two small children north bound on Foster Street in White Rock, British Columbia. She proceeded through the intersection of Foster Street and Prospect Avenue when she was struck by the defendants west bound vehicle, which had failed to stop at the stop sign. The defendant admits liability for the accident....
The parties in this family action seek orders for the division of their family assets, spousal and child support, and for custody, guardianship and access for their two children....
The plaintiff was a pedestrian walking in a portion of a T intersection normally used by vehicles when an unknown driver left a stop sign at the entrance to the intersection, turned left and struck the plaintiff. The collision knocked her to the ground, causing injuries to her ankle, wrist and chest....
On Saturday, April 1, 2006, Mr. Singh was driving, with his wife as a passenger, from his home in Surrey to his nieces residence. His 2005 Dodge Caravan was westbound on 72nd Avenue. As he approached the intersection at 120th Street, the traffic light for westbound vehicles was red. Mr. Singh stopped behind several other stopped vehicles and was waiting for the light to turn green when his van was struck from the rear by an older van driven by the defendant Amrik Shergill, and owned by Mr. Shergills employer, the defendant Harman Tile & Construction Ltd. ...
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred January 13, 2006, and claims damages. The defendants admit liability but take issue with the nature and extent of the plaintiffs injuries and the amount of damages she should be awarded for those injuries. The defendants say any damage award must be discounted as a result of several pre-existing medical conditions affecting the plaintiff.THE ACCIDENT...
Mr. Burton is the plaintiff in an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 2, 2005. The trial of this action is scheduled to commence on April 19, 2010. However, the defendants have brought this application for a declaration that there is a binding settlement agreement between the parties and a stay of proceedings with respect to the trial. In this regard, the defendants rely upon Rules 2(2), 19(24), and 37B of the Rules of Court, s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court....
THE COURT: I am going to order that the trial in this matter be adjourned generally and that the case be removed from Rule 66 protocol and be dealt with as a normal personal injury case. I will leave it to counsel to set a new trial date.(Judgment on defendant's application re documents and particulars request)...
This ruling concerns the tax gross up and management fees on the award made by the jury in this action. Aside from the award for non pecuniary damages, the jury awarded a total of $1,795,000, including $1,100,000 for the costs of future care, $455,000 for future loss of earnings, and $240,000 for the future loss of interdependency. The total award of $1,795,000 was subject to a 20% reduction to reflect the jurys finding of contributory negligence against the plaintiff. ...
This civil jury trial concluded on December 21, 2009 when the jury awarded the plaintiff damages against the defendant Mohamed Abdikani Mohamed (Mohammed) in an amount totalling $1,813,440 (ie. following 20% deduction for contributory negligence). The claim against the defendant Joseph Samuel (Samuel) was dismissed. The plaintiff now applies for the following orders: · that she recover 100% of her costs of the entire proceeding at Scale C, payable by the defendants Mohammed and Christopher Brent Dubois (Dubois), pursuant to Rule 57(9) and Section 3 of the Negligence Act. · an order pursuant to Rule 57(18) requiring the defendants Mohammed and Dubois to pay the costs of the successful defendant Samuel; and · an order pursuant to Rule 37B that she is entitled to double costs from the defendants Mohamed and Dubois from November 10, 2009 to present. ...
The Plaintiff, Ms. Lissner, applies to vary an order made by Mr. Justice Grist on September 24, 2004 addressing spousal support (the Order). By the terms of the Order, spousal support originally ordered in the amount of $1,400 per month was cancelled. In addition to fixing an amount of spousal support, Ms. Lissner seeks an order imputing income to the defendant, Mr. Lissner, and an order for retroactive spousal support. Although the motion originally included an order for production of income tax returns and notices of assessment, counsel abandoned this part of the application at the commencement of the hearing....
The plaintiff, Allan Chen, by his litigation guardian, claims damages for injuries sustained in an accident which occurred February 27, 2006. The accident occurred when Allan, on a skateboard and against a red light, proceeded into the intersection of 10th Street and Royal Avenue in New Westminster, B.C. The sole issue to be determined is whether the defendants are partially at fault for the accident. The plaintiff admits that Allan was at fault for at least a portion of his injuries but says the defendants were also negligent....
Paul Singleton is claiming damages for injuries he alleges he suffered when he was assaulted by the defendants John ONeil and Don Mace on July 11, 2007. At the time of the alleged assault, Mr. ONeil and Mr. Mace were employed as Transit Police by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, operating as Translink. Mr. Singleton commenced this action on July 31, 2007, and filed a notice requiring trial by jury. The trial is set for five days commencing August 16, 2010. The defendants are applying for an order that this matter be determined under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court before a judge alone....