ICBC Lawyer: Rejected! ICBC Denied Adjournment; Loses Big @ Trial (ahem; again).
As you may know, ICBC’s current policy is to re-victimize the injured by pushing non-issue cases to trial. They are doing so despite the advice of their own lawyers. In some instances, their lawyers are not even prepared for trial and ICBC either seeks to adjourn the trial - causing the injured to potentially wait 1-3 more years for resolution - or alternatively, pushes forward to trial with little-to-no evidence.
The Courts have recently admonished ICBC for such tactics.
One example (of many) is the recent case of Choy v Stimpson, 2021 BCSC 1020. In this case, the plaintiff was injured in two motor vehicle accidents. The Plaintiff was 20 years-old at the time of the first accident, and 25 years-old at the time of trial. He was active in various sports throughout his school years, in particular playing both ice and inline hockey. Following high school, he continued playing hockey in addition to taking on a job as a skating instructor and rink attendant for the City of Vancouver. He continued to play hockey actively in 2015 and 2016; in sum, before the first accident, he was happy and healthy.
Liability was admitted in both collisions.
Unfortunately, ICBC’s lawyer did not prepare adequately for the case and tried to blame the injured victim to prolong the resolution of this matter. In reasons indexed at Choy v Stimpson, 2021 BCSC 1071, ICBC brought an application for the disclosure of documents (from Physicians, Hospitals, and treating professionals) or alternatively, an adjournment of trial (para. 5). The trial in this case was set for five days (para. 4). ICBC had examined the plaintiff for discovery approximately two months before trial and after the 84-day expert report service deadline (paras. 13 & 15). At no time did ICBC serve the plaintiff with any expert reports or expert evidence (para. 15). ICBC sought the production of records based on the plaintiff’s discovery evidence (para. 13). Most, if not all, the records sought were in the possession and control of third-party record holders (para. 7).
Ultimately, Master Vos dismissed ICBC’s application for documents and adjournment, instead awarding costs to the plaintiff (thereby punishing ICBC). In his judgement, Master Vos stated as follows:
The [defendant’s] second submission is based on the defendants’ desire to get copies of the records requested during the plaintiff’s recent examination for discovery, so they can determine if those documents might contain information that could impact on the assessment of the claims the plaintiff may present. The reason for the adjournment can therefore be attributed to the defendants’ choice to delay conducting their examination for discovery of the plaintiff until February 25, 2021, about two months prior to the trial date, leaving very little time for follow-up document discovery. A trial date set for a case should not be adjourned simply because one side chooses to unduly delay discovery procedures, thereby limiting the time available for further discovery procedures. If that style of practice were endorsed, the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of cases would routinely be thwarted by late adjournment applications, to the detriment of parties involved.
The plaintiff has worked towards the trial date set and would be ready to proceed on that date.
The defendants did not serve any expert evidence for this action. They chose to conduct their examination for discovery of the plaintiff after the 84-day deadline for service of expert reports. They now seek an adjournment of the trial so they can obtain pre-accident records, but, of course, do not know what those records would prove and consequently do not know if they would bear on matters that would be in issue at trial. Any prejudice the defendants perceive they may suffer if they were to proceed to trial without the records therefore is pure conjecture.
An adjournment of the trial would be contrary to the goal of achieving an expeditious resolution of litigated matters. An adjournment would be prejudicial to the plaintiff as it would delay resolution of his claim. Although the defendants argue they might be prejudiced if they proceeded to trial without disclosure of the records they seek, they have not established that that would be the case…
[TRI-CITY LEGAL’s emphasis added]
At trial, the injured victim was awarded approximately $300,000 for his claim including $175,000 for future loss of earnings and $75,000 for pain and suffering.
If ICBC is playing games with your claim in similar fashion and your lawyer is not advocating on your behalf, please contact us immediately. We are here for you and are only one call away. Contact us by filling out the form below; via email at: vsm@tricitylegal.ca; or phone at: (604) 628 8952.