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.




Andrews v. Mainster

             This is an assessment of damages for physical and psychological injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Brenda Andrews, in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on October 10, 2009 at the intersection of West 16th Avenue and Fir Street in Vancouver, British Columbia.  The plaintiff was driving west on West 16th toward Fir Street when a vehicle driven by the defendant Gail Mainster and owned by the defendant Harold Chaim Gutovich struck her vehicle while making a left turn from Fir Street.  Liability has already been determined.  By Reasons for Judgment indexed as Andrews v. Mainster, 2012 BCSC  823, the Honourable Mr. Justice Masuhara found the defendant Gail Mainster to be entirely at fault.  ...

Read More

Ostrikoff v. Oliveira

             The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 15, 2009, on Highway 97 near Peachland, B.C. He and a friend were riding their motorcycles on the highway when a Volkswagen, owned and operated by the defendant, suddenly pulled into their path and a collision ensued. The plaintiff had been travelling at approximately 60 kilometres an hour. He described how his motorcycle “bounced off” the front door and fender of the defendant’s vehicle, “hit the dirt”, and how he was ejected over the top of the handlebars and into a nearby ditch....

Read More

Bourelle v. Loukopoulos

             THE COURT:  The plaintiff seeks a review of a decision of the master sitting as registrar in which he disallowed disbursements relating to two functional capacity evaluations and a cost of future care report. The review is brought pursuant to Rule 14-1(29). The parties do not disagree on the applicable law. They agree the master was obliged to determine whether the particular costs "were proper or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the proceeding" (Rule 14-1(2)). Further, they agree on the standard of review to be applied by this court in reviewing a registrar's order as to costs. The standard of review limits the court's intervention to circumstances in which the registrar was "clearly wrong" or has, "gone wrong on a matter of principle" (see generally Frost v. Frost, 56 B.C.R. 30 (C.A.)). The standard of review is necessarily deferential and it is so for the reasons expressed by Legg J. in Bell v. Fantini (1981), 32 B.C.L.R. 322.The Facts...

Read More

Hart v. Hansma

             The plaintiff Mr. Clement Hart claims damages arising out of injuries sustained in two motor vehicle accidents:  (1) November 15, 2007, and (2) September 23, 2009.  Liability is admitted for both accidents....

Read More

Ngo v. Luong

             Are British Columbia residents who are involved in a motor vehicle accident in Saskatchewan able to sue for damages in tort in British Columbia, or are they bound by Saskatchewan’s no-fault insurance scheme?...

Read More

Peters v. Ortner

             The defendants apply pursuant to Rule 14-1(15) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules for apportionment of costs arising from the trial of this matter....

Read More

Giczi v. Kandola

             The plaintiff suffered personal injuries when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 14, 2008 in New Westminster, B.C.  The defendant admits liability....

Read More

Pan v. Shihundu

             This is a claim for damages arising from two motor vehicle accidents. Liability for both accidents was admitted on the morning of trial. At issue are the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the effect and extent of the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition, the cause of his current injuries and what entitlement the plaintiff has to damages for non-pecuniary loss, future loss of earning capacity, future care costs, special damages and accelerated depreciation respecting his vehicle. No claim is advanced for past wage loss.The Accidents...

Read More

Mosimann v. Guliker

             In the two actions before the court, three accidents, none of which were the fault of the plaintiff, give rise to a claim for damages. The first occurred on September 19, 2008. The second and third occurred on July 23, 2009 and on June 1, 2013, respectively. Liability has been admitted for each, with the exception that contributory negligence is pled in connection with the first accident. The plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, and it is alleged that her injuries would not have been as severe had she done so. This is not conceded.II...

Read More

Laktin v. (Vancouver) City

             The defendant, City of Vancouver, and Constable Richard Coulthard, Sergeant Jeffrey Clee, and Constable Laura Dujmovic apply pursuant to Rule 14-1(9) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules for an order for the costs of this action....

Read More

Phippen v. Hampton

             THE COURT:  Counsel, I am prepared to give you my decision on the claim advanced for reimbursement of interest paid by the Plaintiff, Heather Phippen, to fund the necessary disbursements to pursue her personal injury claim....

Read More

J.D. v. Chandra

             The plaintiff was injured in two car accidents, one on February 18, 2006, when she was 17 years old and in her last year of high school, and the other on March 26, 2010, when she was in her fourth year of university.  She suffered injuries that left her with pain in her back, neck and right shoulder.  She eventually had surgery on her shoulder....

Read More

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