A Record-Setting Award Before the No-Fault Changes
The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision, 2025 BCSC 2006, stands as one of the larger personal injury awards in recent provincial history. This case was decided under the old tort type system, before the introduction of British Columbia’s “minor injury” and no-fault insurance model. It demonstrates how, under the former law, courts could properly compensate seriously injured people for all of their losses: physical, psychological, and financial.
Why This Case Matters
The case involved a multi-vehicle collision that left the claimant with ongoing vestibular dysfunction, migraines, cognitive fatigue, and neck pain. Despite liability being admitted, the defence disputed causation and the extent of damages. After extensive medical and economic evidence, the Court found that the claimant’s injuries were life-altering and permanent, awarding significant compensation across every category of damages: Non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering;Past and future loss of earning capacity; Future care costs and housekeeping assistance; Special damages for out-of-pocket expenses
Comprehensive Case Presentation
The outcome was the result of thorough preparation and exceptional advocacy by Jacqueline Small, who acted for the plaintiff throughout the trial.
Key features of the case presentation included:
-
High-calibre expert evidence in neurology, psychiatry, physical medicine, occupational therapy, and economics.
-
Successful defence of expert admissibility, allowing the Court to consider specialized neurophysiology evidence about vestibular injury mechanisms.
-
Compelling narrative evidence that connected medical facts to the claimant’s day-to-day realities, including the cognitive fatigue and sensory overload that limited her work and family life.
-
Modern damages analysis, grounded in appellate authorities such as Rab v. Prescott and Athey v. Leonati, to quantify lifetime losses with precision.
The court repeatedly referenced the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence and found the expert opinions presented on her behalf to be well supported and persuasive.
A Model of Effective Advocacy
The case also highlights the importance of preparation and precision in trial advocacy. Through careful cross-examination, Ms. Small exposed weaknesses in the opposing experts’ opinions, including incomplete record reviews and unsupported speculation. Her closing submissions on causation and mitigation were accepted by the Court.
Justice Giltrow rejected the defendants’ attempt to reduce damages for alleged failure to mitigate, finding that the plaintiff had made every reasonable effort to manage her symptoms and continue working.
This level of courtroom advocacy reflects the high professional standard expected in complex personal-injury litigation.
A Word of Caution: This Case Was Decided Before ICBC No-Fault
It is important for readers to understand that this case was decided under the former tort-based system, which applied to accidents before April 1, 2019. Under that system, injured people could sue the at-fault driver for full compensation,including pain and suffering, lost income, and cost of future care. Judges determined fair damages based on the evidence presented at trial.
Since then, however, major legislative reforms have dramatically eliminated the rights of accident victims in British Columbia:
-
The “Minor Injury Cap” (effective April 1, 2019) restricts compensation for many soft-tissue and psychological injuries to a small fraction of what courts previously awarded.
-
The “Enhanced Care / No-Fault” system (effective May 1, 2021) has eliminated most lawsuits entirely. Today, compensation is paid through ICBC-administered benefits, regardless of fault, and injured people cannot sue the driver who caused the crash except in rare circumstances.
Because of these changes, any accident occurring after April 1, 2019 is subject to major limitations on compensation and access to the courts.
If you were injured before these dates, your claim remains governed by the tort system. If your accident occurred after, you have severely limited legal options under the new law.
Final Thoughts: Losing Access to Justice
The decision in 2025 BCSC 2006 is a landmark reminder of what access to justice looked like under the tort system. It showcases how thorough preparation, credible evidence, and experienced advocacy can lead to life-changing outcomes for those seriously injured by negligence.
Although legislative changes have since limited these rights, this case remains a powerful example of what the courts once achieved, and what dedicated legal representation can still mean for injured British Columbians seeking fairness and dignity in the process.
