RESULTS
Uthman v. Caan (July 14, 2026)This was a procedural application brought just days before trial. Associate Judge Peck’s decision reinforces Etienne's argument that parties generally cannot create their own urgency through delay and then seek expedited relief immediately before trial. Courts will protect trial preparation and scheduled trial dates unless there is a genuine justification for last-minute applications. The defendant's request for short leave was dismissed, and costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff.Mesenchuk v. Kifleyesus, 2025 BCSC 1327The court agreed with Etienne's argument on behalf of the plaintiff that allowing an application for a vocational assessment given no necessity being established, especially given the timeliness of the defendant’s request for the vocational assessment, would create a very unfortunate precedent.Zhao v. Yip, 2023 BCSC 1290The Court agreed with Etienne that the defendants had not shown that the occupational therapist would bring a unique expertise or evidence that could not already have been addressed by a physiatrist, psychiatrist, or neurologist. The Court emphasized that simply using a different testing method does not justify an additional Rule 7-6 medical examination. The defendant's application for a 3-day functional capacity evaluation was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in any event of the cause.De Reyes v. Fabiszewski, 2023 BCSC 996
De Reyes v. Fabiszewski is a personal injury damages case where the Court compensated the plaintiff for ongoing accident related injuries that affected her work, daily activities, and overall quality of life. Justice Baker found that the motor vehicle collision left Ms. De Reyes with permanent chronic pain and significant psychological injuries that substantially impaired her work capacity and quality of life, resulting in a total award of $759,595.80.Walsh v. Riley, 2023 BCSC 135
The defendant sought 2 additional independent medical examinations (IME’s): a functional capacity evaluation and a vocational assessment. A key problem was the absence of reports from the previous defence experts. The instruction letters showed that those experts had already been asked to comment on functional limitations and work related issues, but there was no evidence that they were unable or unwilling to provide the requested opinions. The Court agreed with Etienne that the defendant must establish the additional IME’s are necessary and not merely duplicative or bolstering of existing expert evidence. Wong v. Au, 2021 BCSC 58Mr. Wong was struck by a vehicle while crossing a street. He was unable to work for 2 years and ultimately could not return to his previous career in the restaurant industry. The court found that although he had retrained and obtained employment as a concierge, his injuries permanently limited his vocational opportunities and prevented him from advancing into higher paying positions. The Court accepted that he remained capable of working but lost future earning potential because of his chronic pain, physical restrictions, and psychological impairments.Goss v. Sull, 2021 BCSC 1853
The plaintiff, a paramedic, suffered chronic right shoulder pain, thoracic outlet syndrome, and functional limitations due to a motor vehicle collision. Although she returned to full-time work, she required assistance from coworkers, missed shifts regularly, could not work overtime, and continued to experience significant symptoms. The Court found she suffered a real and substantial loss of earning capacity, despite remaining employed. The Court awarded $650,000 for loss of future earning capacity. Anderson v. Steffen, 2021 BCSC 2248
Mr. Anderson, a CN Rail crane operator, suffered chronic neck, shoulder, and back pain following a motor vehicle collision. The Court awarded $1.2 million for loss of future earning capacity, finding that the collision forced the plaintiff out of a well-paying career, limited his future employment options, and created a substantial future income loss despite some residual work capacity. Total damages awarded to Mr. Anderson were $1,619,699.67.Huang v. Li, 2020 BCSC 1096
Mrs. Huang's chronic pain impaired her ability to perform household chores and childcare duties, resulting in increased reliance on her husband. The Court awarded $30,000 for loss of housekeeping capacity and $5,000 for her husband's in-trust claim for the additional services he provided.Agelakis v. Xu, 2019 BCSC 2265
In Agelakis v. Xu, a late change in defence counsel is not, by itself, an "emergent circumstance" warranting short leave for significant pre-trial applications, particularly where doing so would prejudice the opposing party and disrupt trial preparation. Tzotzolis v. Wyman, 2019 BCSC 2026
Mr. Tzotzolis suffered chronic low back pain after a motor vehicle collision that aggravated previously degenerative changes in his spine. The Court awarded $95,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $300,000 for future loss of earning capacity and $8,520 for future care costs.Vine v. Taylor, 2018 BCSC 493
Mr. Vine, a film industry chef, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle collision. Although he returned to work, his ongoing pain limited his ability to perform the physically demanding and long hour requirements of his work. As a result, he lost earning capacity and future employment opportunities. The Court awarded $100,000 for past loss of income and $120,000 for future loss of earning capacity.Vine v. Taylor, 2018 BCSC 1025
This decision concerns costs following a successful personal injury trial. Etienne on behalf of the plaintiff recovered $343,487.97 at trial after having made a formal settlement offer of $130,000 shortly before trial. The Court found that the Etienne's offer was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted and awarded the plaintiff double costs. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the rule is to encourage settlement and penalize parties who unreasonably refuse reasonable offers.