Related Blog Posts
Select a category:
Search by keyword:
Fore-Warned: Negligence on the Golf Course
Chilliwack is blessed with some of the most beautiful and playable golf-courses around, and may have more golf per capita than anywhere else. When you
Child Support for Adult Children by Cristen Gleeson
Semancik v. Saunders We all know that the breakdown of a marriage can be hard on children. This is often hardest when the children are
A Warning to Sellers and Real Estate Agents About the Use of Property Disclosure Forms by Jason Filek
Krawchuk vs Scherbak A relatively recent case, Krawchuk vs Scherbak, from the Ontario Court of Appeal, is generating a lot of attention in Canada’s real
Court Affirms Need For “Convincing Evidence” Where Evidence of Injury is Entirely Subjective
In CARTER V. ZAHN, 2012 BCSC 595 (“CARTER”), a judgment released on April 24, 2012, Verhoeven J. held that requiring “convincing evidence” where a plaintiff presents only subjective evidence of ongoing injuries does not contradict Rothstein J.’s holding in F.H. V. MCDOUGALL, 2008 SCC 53 (“MCDOUGALL”) that there is only one standard of proof applicable to civil cases.
Court of Appeal Considers Gap in Plaintiff’s Report of Symptoms
In EDMONDSON V. PAYER, 2012 BCCA 114 (“EDMONDSON”), a judgement released on March 8, 2012, the Court of Appeal considered and rejected a number of arguments by the appellant (the Defendant), who was appealing from a judgment that awarded the Plaintiff $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicle collision. One of these arguments was based on the fact that there was a 31-month gap between reported symptoms in the Plaintiff’s clinical records.
Court Awards $50,000 For Pain and Suffering For Soft Tissue Injury
On February 21, 2007, the Plaintiff was riding in the front passenger seat of a vehicle driven by her friend, the Defendant. As the Defendant proceeded through an intersection, a van broadsided the driver’s side door of her vehicle. The impact was reasonably severe and caused significant damage to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle. Although the Plaintiff was wearing her seatbelt, she claimed that the force of the collision caused the right side of her body to strike the interior of the Defendant’s vehicle.