Douglas Wright

This mid-trial ruling addressed the defendants' intention to cross-examine the plaintiff and her property guardian on the total amount of an accident benefits settlement in a tort action.

The court denied permission to inquire about the total settlement amount, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, especially given the plaintiff's mild brain injury.

However, the court allowed cross-examination on specific components of the settlement (caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping/home maintenance expenses) that were expressly pleaded and denied, deeming these relevant to the mitigation defence.

The ruling clarified that collateral benefits are deducted by the trial judge as a matter of law after the jury's verdict.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer under his sister's policy.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he was financially dependent on his sister at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant was precluded from making an election under s. 59 of the Schedule because he had already received accident benefits from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the plaintiff’s notice of examination seeking to examine an employee from its accident benefits department as a discovery witness.

The defendant argued that, due to a firewall maintained between accident benefits and third‑party bodily injury claims, an adjuster from the bodily injury department should instead be examined.

The court held that an examining party has a prima facie right to choose which officer, director, or employee of a corporate party to examine, and that this choice should not lightly be interfered with.

Given the plaintiff’s express consent to the sharing of information between departments, the concerns underlying the firewall policy were addressed.

The motion to set aside the examination was dismissed.

Following the settlement of a dispute over income replacement benefits, the parties could not agree on the amount of expenses payable to the applicant.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $26,256.74 in expenses, including 100 hours of legal preparation time at $120 per hour, maximum allowable expert report fees, and various disbursements.

The arbitrator declined to award preparation fees for experts who did not testify.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer brought a motion to exclude the applicant from receiving income replacement and housekeeping benefits under s. 30(1)(a) of the Schedule, arguing he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was driving without insurance.

The applicant's policy had been cancelled for non-payment, but he denied receiving the registered cancellation letter or being informed of the cancellation by his broker.

The arbitrator found that the insurer failed to prove the applicant received the cancellation notice or was clearly informed of the cancellation.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant reasonably believed his policy was still in effect and dismissed the insurer's motion.