In this car and bicycle injury ICBC case (Kooner v. Singh, 2011 BCSC 1384) the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia wanted the injury claimant to have their personal injury case heard in Small Claims Court.   The lawsuit involved a personal injury that occurred at or near the intersection of 96th Avenue and 128th Street in Surrey, British Columbia.  The claimant suffered injury to his head, neck, back, shoulder, and left knee in the bike accident.  The car crash  involved the injury claimant on a bicycle striking a car that was, according to the driver, straddling the sidewalk.  
The Court rejected the application of ICBC commenting that :
” I am not prepared, on the basis of the material, to summarily find that there is no possibility of the trial establishing damages in excess of $25,000, nor am I in a position to assess whether or not the liability aspect of the claim would foreclose the possibility of such damages.  It seems to me that the defence must be seeking the limitation of $25,000 because there is very little else that would suggest a motivation for such claims.  It is not, as it may once have been, obvious that the Provincial Court is equipped to hear these matters more expeditiously or more cheaply, particularly given the point at which this application is brought, post-discoveries, after most of the expenses that go into a Supreme Court trial have been incurred.  My understanding of the current state of hearing day fees, as such, is that there are none for the first three days of trial.  So that is not a factor.  There was a suggestion before me that the informality of the Provincial Court is an advantage, but unless that informality is tied to reduced time in court, which is not at all clear, I fail to see how that, in itself, results in any particular economy.
…  I will also say, as I said in Chang v. Wren, that I am absolutely not persuaded by any efficiency or cost-saving argument, particularly where, as here, the application is brought at a point post-discovery.  There is very little process to avoid at this point and, for the reasons I have already indicated, it is not at all clear that there are cost savings to be realized.”  The ICBC court application was dismissed. Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment