In this New Westminster car accident claim the BC Supreme Court concluded that the injury claimant did not suffer a brain injury(Minhas v. Sartor, 2012 BCSC 779). The court said that the claimants testimony must be regarded with scepticism and given little or no weight. The claimant demonstrated at this trial that he was both an unreliable and a dishonest witness. The court was satisfied that the claimant lied deliberately when he perceived that a lie would benefit him; but he also lied carelessly when he could not be bothered to turn his mind to what the truth might be.
Judge Baker quoted the statement made by Justice Southin, as she then was, in Le v. Milburn, [1987] B.C.J. 2690, as follows:
When a litigant practices to deceive, whether by deliberate falsehood or gross exaggeration, the court has much difficulty in disentangling the truth from the web of deceit and exaggeration. If, in the course of the disentangling of the web, the court casts aside as untrue something that was indeed true, the litigant has only himself or herself to blame. (para. 2).
The judge also concluded that the injury claimant contributed to the severity of his injuries, in particular the injury to his face, by failing to wear his seat belt and reduced the claim by 20%.
In considering the claimants credibility the judge concluded that in the years before the car accident the claimant ignored traffic laws dozens of times; received social assistance payments to which he was not entitled; received employment insurance benefits to which he was not entitled; applied for workers’ compensation benefits to which he was not entitled; falsified an employment resume and misrepresented his employment history; enlisted his brother, his brother-in-law, and a former co-worker to provide false references to a prospective employer; faked a workplace injury in order to collect benefits; failed to report taxable income to Canada Revenue Agency and filed false tax returns; retaliated against a former employer and former supervisors who terminated his employment by writing scurrilous e-mails and graffiti, and by making false accusations about an employer to the employer’s customers; and misled or provided inaccurate information to his doctor about the severity of a workplace injury and its impact on his ability to work.
With respect to the claim for cost of future care the judge stated,
[The claimant] is seeking an award in excess of $2 million for the cost of care that he says he will require in future as a result of the accident. Of that, the sum of $1,803,574 relates to the cost of a residential care facility for persons with acquired brain injury. I have earlier stated my conclusion that [The claimant] did not suffer a brain injury caused either by the accident, or the respiratory infection. I also consider there to be no possibility that [The claimant]would agree to reside in a supervised residential setting; or that he could be compelled to do so.
After 25 days of trial the judge awarded the injury claimant a total personal injury award of $95,816.00 broken down as follows:
| Pain and Suffering | $70,000 |
| Past Loss of Income | $20,000 |
| Out of pocket expenses | $4,466 |
| Cost of Future Care | $1,350 |
| Total | $95,816 |
Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness B.A., LL.B.
1 Comment