This Court of Appeal decision assists appellants by not requiring leave for dismissal of juries in ICBC personal injury cases. The lawyer representing ICBC in his closing argument in front of a jury alleged that the claimant told half truths in her testimony about the car accidents and her injuries. This was in itself untrue and the trial judge found it appropriate, because of comments of counsel, to discharge the jury and continued the trial as a judge alone proceeding.
When the defendant, ICBC, appealed the case it wished to include as a ground of appeal the discharge of the jury. The injury claimant sought an order quashing that portion of the notice of appeal, arguing that the order discharging the jury was interlocutory and leave to appeal would be required. At page 5 of her judgment refusing the application to quash, Huddart J.A. said this:
 … The matter of the dismissal of the jury, although it is authorized by Rule 41(7) is in fact one of those matters that is subsumed in the final order of the court and can form part of the overall of the order of the trial judge.
 In these circumstances I find that the order dismissing the jury following counsels’ addresses is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of s. 7(2) of the Court of Appeal Act and leave is not required. The application is dismissed. (Stanley v. Godwin et al, 2002 BCCA 166)
This decision has been followed by Morrison v. Van Den Tillaart,2012 BCCA 185; Bentley v. The Police Complaint Commissioner,2012 BCCA 514; Le Soleil Hospitality Inc. v. Louie,2008 BCCA 142; Park v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,2002 BCCA 395; and Chaplin v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2002 BCCA 292.
Read more to learn how to appeal an ICBC personal injury decision before litigation.