This vehicle injury case arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 14, 2018, in which the plaintiff was struck from behind while traveling on Highway 1( Gill v. Gregory,2025 BCSC 352). Liability for the accident has been admitted. The plaintiff, a heavy-duty mechanic employed by Coast Mountain Bus Lines and Vancouver Port Authority, returned to work relatively quickly, maintaining full-time and overtime hours. However, he continues to experience injuries that limit his ability to perform certain heavy-duty tasks, negatively impacting his attempt to start a mobile servicing business. Although his income has remained stable post-accident, he argues that his earnings would have increased but for the accident, and he raises concerns regarding the long-term impact on his earning capacity. The trial is scheduled for March 24, 2025.
Issue of Financial Hardship
The plaintiff sought exemptions from the Disbursement and Expert Evidence Regulation (DEER) for various disbursements exceeding the 6% cap, including expert fees for a physiatrist, psychiatrist, economist, and mediation costs. The requested exemptions amounted to $19,000–$25,000, while the allowable amount under the DEER cap, based on a potential $300,000 claim, would be approximately $18,000. The plaintiff argued that failing to exclude these costs would result in unrecoverable expenses, constituting financial hardship.
Evidence Presented on Financial Hardship
The plaintiff’s reported annual earnings between 2019 and 2023 ranged from $160,000 to $195,000. There was no evidence regarding the plaintiff’s living expenses, debts, or financial obligations. The plaintiff is single, has no dependents, and owns a home with a secondary suite that generates rental income. The only affidavit presented came from a paralegal at the plaintiff’s counsel’s office, summarizing his earnings but lacking details on financial obligations or hardship factors.
The court acknowledged the potential financial impact of the disbursement cap but found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish undue hardship. While recognizing that financial hardship varies among plaintiffs, the court emphasized that proving hardship requires more than a theoretical reduction in damages due to litigation costs. Unlike cases where plaintiffs had limited or no income, Gill had stable earnings, no dependents, and additional rental income.
The court referenced prior decisions where hardship was established through detailed evidence of financial strain, such as divorce proceedings, rental income shortfalls, and documented living expenses. In this case, the absence of evidence on the plaintiff’s personal expenses and financial obligations prevented the court from concluding that he would suffer hardship.
Proving Financial Hardship
To successfully argue financial hardship in similar cases, a plaintiff is forced to provide: (a) Detailed financial disclosures beyond income, including living expenses, liabilities, and outstanding debts; (b) Affidavit evidence from the plaintiff, not just a paralegal, outlining the direct impact of the disbursement cap on financial stability may be helpful; (c) Comparative financial circumstances, demonstrating how the inability to recover disbursements would create undue financial strain; (d) Supporting case law and precedent- showing similarities between the plaintiff’s situation and those where hardship was established.
Given the lack of sufficient financial evidence, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for exemption of disbursements, despite acknowledging that the expenses were necessary and that the 6% cap could result in unrecoverable costs.
Privacy and Inequality Concerns
The requirement for detailed financial disclosure in proving financial hardship raises significant concerns about a plaintiff’s right to privacy and creates inequality among claimants. Forcing plaintiffs to disclose their full financial circumstances, including personal debts, assets, and expenses, exposes them to an invasive level of scrutiny that is not imposed on defendants. This requirement disproportionately affects individuals who are financially stable but still face legitimate financial burdens due to litigation costs, creating an unfair advantage for wealthier plaintiffs who can absorb these expenses more easily. Conversely, lower-income plaintiffs may struggle to meet the evidentiary threshold, limiting their ability to access justice and properly litigate their claims. This disparity in disclosure obligations exacerbates existing inequalities in the legal system and places an undue burden on individuals seeking fair compensation for their injuries.
