- Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein
- Andrew D. Brine
- Angela Bespflug
- Bill Dick, K.C.
- Brandon Souza
- Caitlin Ohama-Darcus
- Daryl J. Brown
- Elizabeth A. Emery
- Irina Kordic
- J. Scott Stanley
- Janelle O'Connor
- Jeffrey J. Nieuwenburg
- Joe Battista, K.C.
- Joe Murphy, K.C.
- John M. Cameron
- Keri Grenier
- Kevin Gourlay
- Kevin Hyde
- Matthew W. Van Nostrand
- Mike Murphy
- Paul J. Bosco
- Raj Dewar
- Stephen Gibson
- Tara Chandler
- Veronica Medved
- Back, Neck and Spinal Cord Injuries
- Disability Pension Claw Back Class Action
- Chronic Pain
- Psychological Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents
- Supplemental Retirement Benefits (SRB) Class Action
- Indigenous Child Welfare Class Action
- ICBC MSP Class Action
- Denied Claims
- Motor Vehicle Accidents - ICBC Injury Claims
- Orthopaedic Injuries
- Pedestrian Injuries
- Brain and Head Injuries
- Insurance Disputes
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Burn Injuries
- Social Host Liability
- Injury Claims
- Injured Passengers
- Commercial Host Liability
- Slip and Fall Injuries
- Recreational Accidents
- Homeowners Insurance
- Bike Accidents
- Motorcycle Accidents
- Medical Malpractice
- Eye Injuries
Our Success Benefits All Our Clients*
We are experienced trial lawyers with a proven track record of success.
A selection of personal injury, class action lawsuits and insurance cases* where our lawyers have successfully helped clients are listed below.
*Disclaimer: The outcome of every legal proceeding will vary according to the facts and unique circumstances in each individual case. References to successful case results where the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP have acted for clients are not necessarily a guarantee or indicative of future results.
J. Scott Stanley and Elizabeth Emery successfully argued that the defendant was required to make a sizeable contribution towards the costs of purchasing an adaptive home for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained a spinal cord injury and was no longer able to live where she did before her accident. This decision clarified the law and confirmed that the cost of purchasing a home is a proper expense. The plaintiff was awarded $493,000 for the home, bringing her total award up to $5,962,670.36.
A team of lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP, led by Scott Stanley and John Cameron along with a team from Slater Vecchio LLP were successful in obtaining an order for certification of a class action against the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) on behalf of patients who received procedures at BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (BCWH) during 2020 and 2021. The certification order allows the Plaintiff to pursue the following common issues: violation of privacy, vicarious liability, and punitive damages.
The class action arises from the alleged involvement of Brigitte Cleroux, an individual believed to be an unlicensed nurse, in the provision of nursing care to approximately 1,150 patients who attended for gynecological surgical procedures during the specified period.
PHSA sent out letters to all of those in BC that were treated by Cleroux. If people believe they are included in this action, they are encouraged to reach out to Murphy Battista LLP or Slater Vecchio LLP about their experience.
Read the Reasons for Judgement on Certification Application in Massie v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2023 BCSC 1275.
More information about the class action and contact information can be found here: Cleroux (Provincial Health Services Authority) Class Action.
Angela Bespflug, Janelle O’Connor and Caitlin Ohama-Darcus, along with lawyers from Cooper Regel, were successful in obtaining an order for certification in this class action against Canada on behalf of Indigenous persons who allege that, at any time between May 14, 1953 and the present, they were physically or sexually assaulted by members of the RCMP during arrest, detainment, or while being held in custody, and who were alive as of July 20, 2018.
Read the full reasons for judgment: Meguinis-Martin v. His Majesty the King, 2023 FC 771.
For more information about this class action please visit: RCMP Indigenous Racism and Assault Class Action.
J. Scott Stanley and Tara Chandler represented the Plaintiff who sustained a spinal cord injury when she was struck by a recreation vehicle on private land. The defendant denied liability, claimed the Plaintiff and/or her spouse were at fault. The trial judge found the defendant 100% liable and assessed damages at $5,369,670 with liberty to make submissions on further heads of damages including adaptive housing, which was an item that was to be awarded to the Plaintiff.
The class action seeks various damages, restitution, and recovery of specific costs on behalf of those affected by Canada’s Indigenous child welfare system.
Scott Stanley and Elizabeth Emery successfully obtained an order certifying a class action against ICBC on behalf of Accident Victims who allege that ICBC wrongfully took money from their accident benefit accounts and paid this money to the Province of B.C. pursuant to an illegal scheme. Compensation for the Accident Victims and punitive damages were certified as common issues.
Read the Reasons for Judgment in Rorison v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 624
Elizabeth Emery acted for the widow of an ICBC claims examiner who had taken his life. Elizabeth was initially successful in obtaining survivor benefits for the widow and her three young children through WorkSafeBC, on the basis that the worker’s suicide was brought about by his employment. The deceased worker had been the primary source of financial support for his family.
The deceased worker’s employer (ICBC) chose to challenge WorkSafeBC’s acceptance of the widow’s claim for survivor benefits, leading to a review before the WorkSafeBC Review Division. The main issue before the Review Division was whether the deceased worker’s employment as a senior claims examiner had aggravated his pre-existing depression, which led to his death. Elizabeth was successful in defeating the employer’s appeal and maintaining survivor benefits for the widow and her children. The Review Division upheld the initial decision of the WorkSafeBC Case Manager, finding that there was evidence of an identifiable series of significant stressors arising out of the worker’s employment and that these stressors were the predominant cause of the aggravation of his pre-existing depression.
The benefits obtained for the widow and her children are worth over $1.5 million.
John Cameron acted for JC who sustained injuries to her neck, back and shoulders as well as chronic pain and depression arising from a motor vehicle accident. A dedicated and professional executive assistant, JC tried to continue working with her injuries. However she struggled and was only able to do so with the help of a very accommodating employer. In time she could not continue and in addition to losing her position as an executive assistant she also was not able to pursue her other passions which included dancing and acting in television and motion pictures.
One of the main issues at trial was assessing a fair amount for JC for her injuries and chronic pain. There was also the issue of fair compensation for JC in relation to how her injuries would affect her in the workforce going forward. In the end, the Court accepted Mr. Cameron’s arguments in support of fair compensation for the dramatic changes in JC’s life, health, activities and work abilities after the accident.
The Court ultimately awarded JC over $500,000 in compensation, including damages for loss of earning capacity. The eventual Court award was more than three times the amount of compensation which ICBC had offered prior to the trial.
Read the full decision here.
Stephen Gibson and Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein successfully represented firefighter Aaron Gelowitz who suffered catastrophic injuries when he struck his head on a submerged tree stump after diving from shore into Williamson Lake. Mr. Gelowitz fractured his C6 vertebra and suffered an associated spinal cord injury. The claim alleged that the City of Revelstoke was partially liable for Mr. Gelowitz’s injuries. Among other things, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Sayn-Wittgenstein argued that the city failed to appropriately place and properly maintain signage warning against diving and advising of underwater hazards at the site where the accident occurred. Further, they argued that the city owed a duty of care to park users to warn of hazards associated with the use of park facilities, including hazards associated with water activities in the lake. After weighing the evidence, the court held that the city was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to protect Mr. Gelowitz’s safety and should have done more. Justice Horsman found the city 35% liable for the injuries. The case is being appealed by the City with a hearing set for the fall of 2022.
Read the case: Gelowitz v. Revelstoke (City), 2022 BCSC 46
Media coverage of the case can be viewed at the links below.
Revelstoke Review: Man suing city, resort after diving incident resulting in serious injury
Canadian Underwriter: The case for tracking your risk advice
John Cameron and Irina Kordic acted for SM who was injured in a car accident when she was just entering the workforce. The Court noted that the MVA was a significant turning point in the plaintiff’s life. It resulted in her having to quit her job at age 19 and move in with her mother and other relatives. She was left with a sense of loss and despair. Her self-confidence was significantly eroded. Although she was initially able to keep working for more than a year after the MVA, her back pain reached the point where she could no longer work and she resigned from her job. After a trial in BC Supreme Court SM was awarded approximately $400,000 in damages.
Matthew Van Nostrand acted for the plaintiff in this case involving a plaintiff suffering from a soft tissue neck injury. The main issue involved a foregone work opportunity that was lost due to the plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident. The court awarded damages in the amount of $95,984.
Kevin Gourlay represented a client who was one of four people injured by a driver who lost consciousness and pressed the accelerator. The trial judge dismissed the case on the basis that the driver had an unexpected coughing episode. Kevin worked with appeal counsel who successfully overturned the lower court decision and awarded a new trial. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made a palpable (obvious) and overriding (significant) error in assessing the evidence of another passenger. This case illustrates the lengths that Murphy Battista LLP will go on behalf of their clients.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial. The Plaintiff was a cement truck driver who was unable to continue with his career after being involved in a car accident. The Plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $600,000.
Paul Bosco, Joe Battista, and Austin Paladeau represented Mr. Dunn following serious physical and psychiatric injuries that he sustained in a serious car accident. Mr. Dunn suffered a spiral fracture to the wrist which required multiple surgeries and left him in ongoing pain. He also suffered debilitating depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD. His injuries impacted all aspects of his life, including preventing him from continuing his work as an installer of high-end audio equipment, or doing any physical work in the future, which is what he had experience and training in. ICBC vehemently fought every single aspect of Mr. Dunn’s case. But the Court ultimately accepted Mr. Bosco’s, Mr. Battista’s, and Mr. Paladeau’s arguments, and awarded Mr. Dunn over $830,000, including over $500,000 towards his income earning capacity – over 1.5 times what ICBC offered before trial.
Scott Stanley and Mike Murphy successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial. The Plaintiff was a successful window washer who was struck by a vehicle while working on his ladder, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain a brain injury. The Defendant took the position that the Plaintiff and the strata he was working at were partially at fault for the accident, noting that the Plaintiff and the strata had not followed certain WorkSafeBC guidelines. The Court found the defendant driver to be 100% at fault and assessed the Plaintiff’s damages at $648,000.
Andrew Brine and Irina Kordic represented Ms. Beaudoin who sustained a neck fracture, multiple soft tissue injuries and psychological injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Ms. Beaudoin’s ability to work was the main issue at trial. Although she had gone back to work shortly after the accident, she did so while heavily medicated and in constant pain. She stopped working altogether about a year before trial. The court accepted the arguments of Mr. Brine and Ms. Kordic that Ms. Beaudoin was completely disabled and awarded $650,000 for her loss of capacity to work. Ms. Beaudoin’s total award at trial was over $1,000,000 which was more than three times what she was offered to settle before trial.
Scott Stanley successful represented the Claimant in an arbitration with ICBC. The Claimant was a young chiropractor student from B.C. who was going to school in California. He had a valid B.C. license and was stopped by a police officer who wrongly told him he needed to get a California license. He applied for and obtained a California license even though he did not meet the residency requirements to obtain such a license. He was in a serious car accident in California and the negligent driver did not have enough insurance and the Claimant needed to rely on his underinsured motor protection (UMP) which he had as a result of holding a B.C. license. ICBC denied his claim saying that the Claimant surrendered his B.C. license (and his UMP coverage) when he obtained the California license. The arbitrator found that he did not surrender his B.C. license and that he was entitled to his $1M of UMP coverage.
Matthew Van Nostrand and Keri Grenier acted for the plaintiff in this case involving a plaintiff suffering from chronic soft tissue injuries and post concussion-like symptoms. The main issue at trial revolved around the plaintiff’s loss of income earning capacity; she continued to earn steadily more income as a bookkeeper following the accident, but not to the extent she would have absent her injuries in the accident. The court ultimately found that Ms. Ogden’s ability to earn income was impacted, and awarded $432,419 in damages.
Irina Kordic and Paul Bosco represented a woman for injuries she sustained in a car accident. Prior to the accident, she suffered injuries in a significant workplace accident which led to chronic low back pain, depression, and anxiety, all of which caused her to require significant amounts of medication and be permanently partially disabled. The car accident caused her back injury and anxiety to worsen, and she became largely housebound and unable to work at all. ICBC argued her existing injuries and medication use, along with several other unfortunate events in her life, were the cause of her problems. The Court, however, accepted the arguments of Ms. Kordic and Mr. Bosco that the victim’s injuries, specifically her much-worsened anxiety, was a cause of her present issues and disability, and awarded 1.5 times what ICBC offered before trial.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action seeking in excess of $900,000,000 from both ICBC and the Province of British Columbia. They alleged a scheme wherein ICBC and the Province illegally charged the costs of physician visits to accident victims which reduced the amount of rehabilitation funds available to persons injured in car accidents and caused ratepayers to pay more for their insurance. ICBC and the Province brought a preliminary application seeking an opportunity to apply to dismiss the claims prior to certification. This application was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to certification.
In 2017, Joe Murphy, Q.C. took on the claim of SA from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2004. In 2004, SA was sitting in a parked work truck having his lunch when the truck was struck by another vehicle, leaving SA very badly injured. In 2004, the ICBC coverages provided about $350,000 in insurance coverage to SA. Joe argued that SA was entitled to the 2007 ICBC coverage that would provide $1 million to SA, even though the MVA was in 2004. In 2018, an arbitrator agreed that SA was entitled to the $1 million 2007 coverage, and when ICBC tried to appeal that decision, in 2020 BC Supreme Court judge dismissed that appeal – with the final result that SA recovered an additional $650,000.
Read the full decision here.
Student assaulted outside his Delta high school more than 10 years ago was been awarded nearly $500,000 in damages
John Cameron acted as counsel for RSS. On April 15, 2009, RSS, who was 14, was attacked moments after he left the grounds of Delta Secondary School on his way home. Two men, one or both wielding telescopic metal batons, jumped out of a vehicle driven by the Defendant, ran after RSS and assaulted him at the direction of the Defendant. The Court heard that the assault on RSS, who is now 26, was said to be revenge for a high-school spat with the Defendant’s younger son, also a student at the school, over a female student.
RSS suffered a cracked nose, a concussion and bruising throughout his body. He suffered headaches for the first six months after the attack and also experienced paranoia, anxiety and depression. The Defendant was found guilty in provincial court of two counts of assault causing bodily harm after a judge concluded he was the directing mind behind the assault on RSS. His appeal was dismissed.
RSS sued the Defendant for damages. At trial, the Defendant argued that while RSS was injured in the attack, the injuries healed quickly with no lasting effects.
After trial the B.C. Supreme Court found that RSS had been left with chronic pain that caused frequent, severe and disabling headaches, which continued to affect his mood and caused mental health problems.
“The battery has left him anxious and depressed, fearful for his safety and that of his family, hypervigilant, socially withdrawn and caused him to suffer suicidal ideation and panic attacks,” said the judge.
The Court awarded RSS a total of $479,376 in damages including $125,000 for pain and suffering, $236,000 for loss of future income earning capacity, $65,000 for past lost earning capacity, $35,000 for aggravated damages and $15,000 for the cost of future care.
Keri Grenier and Matthew Van Nostrand acted for the plaintiff in this case involving the impact of injuries caused in two separate rear-end collisions. In the first accident, Ms. Pinkney hit her head and lost consciousness for a short time and was treated for injuries to her neck, back, and thumb. The second accident was less severe, aggravating the initial injuries and setting back the progress she had been making in her recovery. The main issue at trial was the impact of Ms. Pinkney’s injuries on her ability to work in the family business. Although the business grew after the accidents (causing ICBC to argue that there was no loss), Ms. Pinkney’s involvement diminished, meaning that the business was less profitable than it would have been had Ms. Pinkney not been injured. The court ultimately found that Ms. Pinkney’s ability to earn income was impacted, and awarded $442,600 in damages.
John Cameron acted for FM who sustained injuries to his neck, shoulders and back as well as migraine headaches after a motor vehicle accident. He had been forced to miss work for several months and when he came back to work he was no longer suitable for his previous demanding physical position. He needed powerful pain killers and at times Botox injections for headaches and epidural injections to manage his pain. Eventually he needed to change jobs.
One of the main issues at trial was quantifying the losses to FM in relation to how his injuries might affect his future in the workforce as he had many years left to work. The judge accepted Mr. Cameron’s arguments in support of fair compensation for the fact that FM would be precluded from the type of physical work he used to perform due to his injuries. The Court ultimately awarded FM over $300,000 in compensation, including damages for loss of earning capacity. The Court award was much more than the compensation which ICBC had offered before trial.
John Cameron and Kevin Hyde represented AT who suffered multiple injuries in a car accident, including a persistent lower back pain and SI joint dysfunction. Many aspects of her life were affected as a result of her injuries, including her ability to work full-time. The court accepted the arguments of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hyde that AT deserved compensation for her injuries as well as for the impact of her injuries on her employment. She was also awarded compensation to allow for future therapy. In total, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hyde obtained an award of just over $280,000 for AT, an amount more than five times higher than the amount ICBC offered before trial.
John Cameron and Paul Bosco represented Mr. Shrieves for injuries he sustained in a car accident when he was 67 years old. Mr. Shrieves was also involved in additional car accidents: one 20 years prior, and one 3 months prior. He also had experienced some rheumatoid arthritis. However he had worked full-time and been very good at his job in spite of those previous issues. Unfortunately, the injuries from the accident in question in this case required him to retire 2 years earlier than he had planned. ICBC argued he should not receive any money for this, but the judge accepted Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco’s arguments that he should. The judge ultimately accepted virtually all of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco’s submissions, and awarded Mr. Shrieves $163,000, over three times what ICBC offered prior to trial.
Paul Bosco and Scott Stanley successfully defeated the appeal of a trial where tenants and a landlord were found liable for significant burn injuries sustained by their client. One of the tenants poured used motor oil on a backyard fire which caused an explosion. The landlord, who happened to be the City of Burnaby, had been warned the tenant had had fires in the past, which was contrary to their own bylaw prohibiting open fires, but did nothing about this. The Court of Appeal, the highest level of Court in BC, accepted Mr. Bosco and Mr. Stanley’s arguments that this scenario could have been reasonably foreseen by both the tenants and the landlord, and that the injured victim was in no way responsible for her injuries. This case explored new areas of the law on landlord and tenant liability, as well as liability following awareness of ongoing hazards, with an outcome that is helpful for people who are injured in BC.
Irina Kordic and Paul Bosco represented Ms. Nessar Ali, who suffered multiple injuries in a car accident, including a torn rotator cuff which required surgery, as well as emotional injuries. All aspects of Ms. Nessar Ali’s life were significantly impacted as a result of her physical and emotional injuries, including her ability to work and her ability to perform her housekeeping tasks. The court accepted the arguments of Ms. Kordic and Mr. Bosco that Ms. Nessar Ali was entitled to an award for pain and suffering, as well as an additional amount of money for lost housekeeping ability. On top of that, the court accepted their arguments that she was entitled to an amount of money for housekeeping that was performed by a friend as well as her daughter to date, and an amount of money for housekeeping into the future. ICBC argued against each of these, but the court rejected all of ICBC’s arguments on these points. In total, Ms. Kordic and Mr. Bosco obtained an award of almost $300,000 for Ms. Nessar Ali that was almost exactly three times the amount ICBC offered before trial.
Angela Bespflug and Janelle O’Connor were counsel on this action and its ground-breaking settlement that provided compensation for female class members who were subjected to sexual harassment and assault in the RCMP workplace. The action is part of an emerging and innovative body of jurisprudence that seeks to push our Canadian judicial system to accept class actions as the preferable procedure for resolving systemic sexual misconduct.
Paul Bosco and Kevin Gourlay represented a young woman who was struck from behind at high speed by a drunk driver and pushed across an intersection into a ditch. She sustained injuries to her neck, shoulders, back, and headaches, which persisted for many years despite a significant amount of treatment. She missed a few days from work, but generally pushed through her pain beyond that. The Court accepted Mr. Bosco and Mr. Gourlay’s argument that her ability to earn income in the future was negatively impacted as a result of her injuries despite having lost no income to date and having received several promotions and raises. The Court also agreed with Mr. Bosco and Mr. Gourlay that she was entitled to a significant award for pain and suffering, as well as an additional independent award for the impact on her ability to perform housekeeping tasks. In total, the Court awarded $124,000, including $85,000 for pain and suffering.”
John Cameron and Paul Bosco represented VN in a jury trial. VN was an exceptional college football player with aspirations to play in the CFL. Sadly he was run over in a parking lot by a vehicle that then fled the scene. His injuries dramatically impacted his football playing and he never returned to the high level of skill he had enjoyed prior to the accident. The jury awarded VN over $190,000 an amount much higher than offered by the Defendant prior to trial.
Kevin Gourlay acted for two owners of a rental property in Maple Ridge. They thought they were properly insured but when a fire happened, they were denied coverage by their insurer because the home was between tenants and the policy said they had no coverage while the home was “vacant.” The plaintiffs brought a claim against their insurance broker for failing to advise them of the potential gaps in their coverage. The Court concluded that the broker was negligent and was the sole cause of the lack of coverage.
Kevin Gourlay and Stephen Gibson acted for a plaintiff who suffered persistent cognitive symptoms arising from a concussion / mild traumatic brain injury suffered in a 2014 motor vehicle accident. The defence disputed the nature of her injury and suggested it would only have a minimal impact on her ability to earn income. Counsel led evidence from family doctors, a physiatrist, a neuropsychologist, a physiatrist, a psychologist, and an occupational therapist in order to prove her injuries. The Court awarded the plaintiff damages of $428,272, including $140,000 for pain and suffering, $170,000 for lost future earning capacity, and $30,627 for future care.
John Cameron worked with Veronica Medved and Kevin Hyde as counsel for a 42 year old Romanian immigrant to Canada who sustained injuries to his back in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 15, 2013. After immigrating to Canada, the Plaintiff began working as a cleaner at a metal fabrication shop. He enjoyed his work with the Company and was praised for his work ethic. Following the Collision, the Plaintiff was unable to continue to do the physical work associated with his position and the Company had to let him go. At the time of trial, the Plaintiff was working as a casual support worker at a care home. His back continued to bother him at work and limited his employment opportunities. At trial, the Plaintiff was awarded compensation for his injuries and losses in the amount of $604,962, plus costs and disbursements. The written reasons included damages of $70,000 for pain and suffering, $117,000 for past loss of earning capacity, $16,175 for future care, and $400,000 for loss of earning capacity.
John Cameron and Paul Bosco acted for A.G. who sustained injuries to her neck, back, shoulder, and arm, as well as headaches in a motor vehicle accident. A.G. was a very fit and active young woman at the time of her injury. Her injuries impacted her ability to work at full capacity as a yoga instructor and as a high-intensity fitness instructor.
In addition to advocating for fair compensation for A.G.’s injuries, one of the main issues at trial for Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco was fair compensation for the impact of her injuries on A.G’s employment in the fitness training industry.
Ultimately the Court awarded A.G. over $140,000 in compensation. This was over three times the amount ICBC had offered her before trial, and more than 10 times the amount she was offered before she obtained the assistance of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco.
John Cameron and Paul Bosco acted for Mr. Welder, who sustained injuries to his neck, headaches, and concentration difficulties after a motor vehicle accident. His injuries impacted his life, particularly his ability to continue to work as a tower crane operator, a job he had enjoyed and performed for over 30 years prior to his injuries. One of the main issues at trial was quantifying the losses to Mr. Welder, as he had put together a successful company after his injuries and was employing others to do the tower crane work he had previously done himself. ICBC argued that, as Mr. Welder’s company was now so successful, he should be not be awarded any earning capacity losses for the loss of his ability to operate a tower crane. However the judge accepted John and Paul’s arguments and awarded Mr. Welder damages for lost past and future income. The Court found that Mr. Welder had unquestionably suffered a loss of the ability to perform a job that he was very good at and such a loss has economic value. The Court ultimately awarded Mr. Welder over $450,000 in compensation, including damages for loss of earning capacity, an award which was significantly more than ICBC offered before trial.
The court upheld the trial decision, that was in favour of our client, and dismissed the appeal.
Kevin Gourlay, John Cameron and Paul Bosco represented an RCMP officer who was injured when he was rammed multiple times by the driver of a stolen pick-up truck who was attempting to avoid arrest. T.S. was a highly regarded and successful officer who suffered persistent post-concussion symptoms that had a devastating effect on his health, his family life, and his work as a police officer..
After a three week trial in which the defendant took the position the case should be dismissed, the jury deliberated for two days before delivering a verdict well in excess of $1M.
Raj Dewar and Kevin Hyde were counsel for a 34 –year-old third generation stonemason who sustained injuries to his neck and right shoulder in two motor vehicle collisions. ICBC denied fault for both collisions until 2 days before the start of trial. The Plaintiff proceeded to trial and was awarded compensation for his injuries and losses in the amount of $673,770 plus costs and disbursements. The Plaintiff was also awarded double costs from the time of his formal offer to settle, beating ICBC’s formal offer to settle by over half a million dollars. The oral reasons included damages for $130,000 for pain and suffering, $98,600 for future care, and $395,000 for loss of earning capacity.
Stephen Gibson and Scott Stanley acted for the plaintiff who had his ICBC claim dismissed as a result of the negligence of another lawyer at another firm. They were successful at trial, and the plaintiff was awarded damages of $175,000 against his former lawyer. Before coming to Stephen and Scott, the plaintiff had consulted with 46 lawyers who all refused to take the case. This is an example of the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP taking the necessary steps, that other lawyers cannot do or will not take, when it is in best interests of an injured person.
Keri Grenier acted for a worker who suffered multiple injuries while working in the laundry department of the Kelowna General Hospital when he was lifted off the ground and crushed by a laundry machine. Despite his significant injuries, the worker was denied part of his WorkSafeBC claim on the basis that his injuries were initially found be unrelated to the accident. Keri requested a review of the decision denying his neck injury, among other things. The Review Division denied the review. Keri successfully appealed on behalf of her client to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) which confirmed that the worker’s neck injury arose out of the accident. WCAT also suggested that the Board should consider a permanent, partial disability pension assessment with medical treatment.
John M. Cameron and Paul Bosco acted for Mr. Niessen, who was the sole proprietor of a plumbing-and-heating company. Mr. Niessen sustained significant injuries (head, neck, and lower back) when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle that crossed the centre line of a highway and these injuries affected all areas of his life. The main issue at trial was the degree to which Mr. Niessen’s ability to earn income had suffered as a result of his injuries. ICBC took the position that there was a lack of documented evidence to support this loss. However, the court accepted Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bosco’s arguments that Mr. Niessen’s history of skill and ability in his industry, his business records, and the witness called on his behalf including former co-workers and customers, all were sufficient to prove that a significant loss had occurred. In the end, the Court awarded over $840,000 for this loss of earning potential. Overall, the court awarded Mr. Niessen just over $1.2 million, which was almost triple the amount the insurance company had argued Mr. Niessen deserved.
Joe Murphy, Q.C. and Brandon Souza acted for the executors and estate of the deceased, Maxine Wilton, who altered her Will by completing two codicils. The defendants, the deceased’s grandchildren, were no longer beneficiaries in the Will after the second codicil was made. The grandchildren challenged that codicil claiming suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the codicil, that the grandmother lacked the testamentary capacity, and that she was subject to undue influence. The grandmother suffered strokes both before and after the codicil which left the grandchildren out of her will. After a five day trial, the court found the codicil valid and that the grandmother knew exactly what she was doing.
Stephen Gibson, Scott Stanley, and Brandon Souza acted for the plaintiff who suffered a traumatic brain injury and a spinal cord injury that rendered her an incomplete quadriplegic. The plaintiff, an engineer, was driving across train tracks at a passive crossing when a train collided with the right side of her vehicle. The court found that Canadian National Railway Company was aware of insufficient sight lines and the dangerous nature of the specific railway crossing for many years prior to the accident and took no actions to ameliorate those risks. Despite the Plaintiff’s failure to stop at a stop sign at the railway crossing, Canadian National Railway Company was still found 60% at fault for the accident. The court awarded approximately $3,200,000 in damages.
Jeff Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an appeal regarding a finding of contributory negligence on her part and failure to mitigate her damages. The appeal was successful in part with the court finding there was no evidence that the plaintiff failed to follow a treatment, that would have decreased her damages and the failure to mitigate finding was set aside. In the result, this meant that the plaintiff was entitled to recoup the 75% reduction that had been applied to her damages award for failure to mitigate.
Veronic Medved and Tara Chandler acted for a Plaintiff who was only 23 years old at the time of the collision. After T-boning the Defendant (who was found 100% responsible for the collision), the Plaintiff developed a traumatic lesion on her spine and chronic pain condition which disabled her from gainful employment. The Court awarded damages in the amount of $1,885,000, including $185,000 for pain and suffering and $1,297,146 in future income loss. Although her working history was short, the Court accepted that as a single mom, the Plaintiff was very attached to the workforce and would have worked on a full-time basis to the age of 70 without voluntary withdrawal.
In QP v. Bolton, Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco acted for an RCMP officer who was significantly injured in the course of his duties. The court accepted their arguments that his life was significantly impacted as a result of his injuries, he missed out on earning overtime income, his opportunity for advancement in his career may be limited, and that his wife was entitled to compensation for the care she provided by way of an in trust claim. The court also accepted their argument that he and his employer should be compensated for the time he missed from work, despite having been paid by his employer for this time, finding that it would be unfair to let the wrongdoer benefit from the generosity of the employer.
Scott Stanley and Paul Bosco represented a young woman who was the victim of horrible burns following an explosion at a backyard fire pit. The tenant poured a bucket of used motor oil on the fire, causing it to explode. The landlord, who happened to be the City of Burnaby, had been warned the tenant had fires in the past, which was contrary to their own bylaw prohibiting open fires, but did nothing about this. In the course of a month-long jury trial, the court accepted the arguments of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Bosco that (1) a duty of care was owed by the landlord to the victim, a visitor to the premises, (2) it was impossible for the victim to be found at all at fault for the incident and her injuries, and (3) only basic factual questions should be put to the jury for consideration. The jury ultimately awarded the victim a total of $4.56 million.
Angela Bespflug was counsel on this class action and settlement that provided compensation to Indigenous class members for the loss of culture they suffered as a consequence of the Sixties Scoop.
Jeffrey Nieuwenburg acted for the plaintiff on an application by the plaintiff for production of documents from the defendant which include liability documents, privileged documents from its list of documents, and an affidavit of documents. The plaintiff also sought costs. There was a 15-day jury trial in this matter scheduled for February 2018.
Scott Stanley and Brandon Souza acted for the plaintiff in this case involved physical and psychological injuries sustained by a 49 year-old pedestrian on a sidewalk when a driver lost control while attempting to park, drove onto the sidewalk, and pinned the pedestrian against a wall. The pedestrian required three surgeries and had significant limitations with work as a teaching assistant and day-to-day living. The court awarded $1,064,682.07.
Kevin Gourlay and Paul Bosco acted for a 46-year-old tradesman who sustained injuries to his head, neck and back in a head-on collision. The plaintiff also claimed compensation for psychological injuries. He was initially denied benefits by ICBC who said that it was a WCB issue. Having overcome that defence, the plaintiff proceeded to trial and recovered damages of $724,000, including $150,000 for pain and suffering and $400,000 for lost earning capacity.
At issue was whether a car dealership should be found liable for injuries caused by a truck stolen from their car lot. The court accepted that not only was the thief at fault, but the dealership was as well. The evidence established that an employee left the truck unattended with the keys in the ignition, engine running, and doors unlocked for a period of about 40 minutes. Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco successfully argued their client was not at all contributorily negligent for having removed his seat belt prior to the collision in anticipation of pursuing the thief on foot.
AT was a man who worked in the funeral services industry and who suffered serious back pain and spasms after a motor vehicle accident. Unfortunately this chronic pain eventually led to the loss of his career. John M. Cameron of Murphy Battista assisted Mr. David Kolb of Kolb Law Corporation and together they represented AT in a trial in BC Supreme Court. AT achieved an award for compensation of $586,000 which was four times more than ICBC’s best pre-trial offer. AT was awarded $110,000.00 for pain and suffering, $108,000 for diminished earning capacity up to trial, $320,000 for loss of future earnings, and $45,000 for the costs of future medical care.
Scott Stanley was co-counsel in defending a plaintiff against an appeal of a successful judgment of $515,057 which was awarded to the plaintiff for soft tissue injuries and chronic pain. The Defendants challenged the awards for past and future loss of earning capacity arguing these could not be justified on the facts and were not adequately explained in the reasons for judgment by the trial judge. The BC Court of appeal dismissed the appeal and let the judgment stand.
Brian Brooke and Jeffrey Nieuwenburg represented a plaintiff, who was 19 at the time, who was injured while riding as a passenger in a friend’s vehicle when the vehicle left the roadway and rolled. She sustained compression fractures to her thoracic vertebrae and a closed head injury. As a result of these injuries, the plaintiff developed a chronic pain condition and was unable to pursue her dreams of becoming a registered nurse. At trial, the defendant was found wholly responsible for the accident. The plaintiff was awarded damages of approximately $1.4 million.
Joe Battista, Q.C. and Paul Bosco represented a pedestrian plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries, including a brain injury, after being struck by a drunk driver. The driver had recently left a pub, and made several brief stops, including at his home, before colliding with the plaintiff. The law up to this point was that if a patron makes it to their home, by whatever means, the establishment would no longer be liable for injuries caused by the patron, full stop. The court rejected this proposition, and found the pub partially liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. This decision effectively became the new law in BC on commercial host liability, expanding the responsibility owed by establishments, and creating a more favourable legal landscape for claimants who have been injured by intoxicated patrons.
Kevin Hyde was co-counsel for a plaintiff property developer who successfully sued an assignee of a contract of purchase and sale on an indemnity agreement for damages and costs amounting to $125,255.77 that arose out of a failed real estate transaction. Full indemnification for legal fees was also ordered following the trial.
Raj Dewar acted for the Plaintiff – a 34 year old administrative assistant – who suffered injuries to her neck and mid-back when she was rear-ended in a collision. ICBC agreed the other driver was at fault and admitted that the injuries the Plaintiff suffered were as a result of the collision. However, ICBC refused the Plaintiff’s offer to settle her claim and forced her to go to trial. At trial, the judge awarded $70,986.35 in compensation for her injuries and double costs against ICBC as the Plaintiff had been prepared to resolve her case for less than what the judge awarded her.
Scott Stanley represented the Plaintiff in this proceeding involved motor vehicle accidents that occurred on March 9, 2010 and December 7, 2013. Liability was admitted for both accidents.
The Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a neck injury which resulted in headaches and dizziness. While the Plaintiff was able to continue with her work for 3 years, she struggled to do so, and eventually stopped working. The Defendants position was that the Plaintiff sustained only minor injuries and was capable of working claiming that her problems were either exaggerated or not related to the accidents.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 25, 2016 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $373,600 in damages, essentially accepting every claim that was advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Bill Dick and Keri Grenier acted for a plaintiff who was 17 years old when she was struck in a crosswalk by a pickup truck driven by the defendant. The plaintiff’s principal issues following the injury included ongoing dizziness, headaches, anxiety and depression. At issue was whether the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, and whether her ongoing complaints were related to the accident or to other psychosocial stressors in her life as alleged by ICBC. After a two week trial the Court awarded damages totalling $347,581. The judgment included damages for loss of future earning capacity of $175,000.
John Cameron and Brandon Souza acted for A.B., a 37-year-old professional resume writer who was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The accident left her with significant ongoing pain in her neck along with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Her symptoms limited her ability to work and grow her business as she had prior to the accident. After a 3-week trial, the Court awarded damages totaling $352,000, plus costs. The judgment included damages for the plaintiff’s future lost earning capacity of $170,000. Prior to trial ICBC’s best offer was only half of the compensation which A.B eventually received.
Joe Murphy, Q.C., Kevin Gourlay, and Mike Murphy acted for the plaintiff who was 16 when he was hit by a young woman who was not paying attention while driving on Halloween night in 2008. He suffered a significant traumatic brain injury. Before the accident, he had been an exceptionally gifted young man. Although he remained intelligent and was attending university, he was plagued by fatigue and cognitive difficulties as a result of the accident that would significantly impact his ability to work as an engineer. The Court assessed damages at $3,297,000, including $3M for loss of future earning capacity.
Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein and Paul Bosco represented an 83 year-old plaintiff who sustained life-threatening injuries, including a brain injury and various fractures, when he was struck by a vehicle while standing at a bus stop. ICBC denied liability but court found that the driver’s testimony was “littered with enormous credibility issues.” The driver, who had fled the accident scene, was found fully at fault. The plaintiff was awarded over $800,000 at trial, including $315,000 for pain and suffering, over $400,000 for future care, and $55,000 in-trust for the care provided by his wife during his recovery. Due to the plaintiff’s age and injuries, the case was brought to trial quickly, with the trial judgment being made less than 2 years after the accident.
Scott Stanley, Brian Brooke and Jeff Nieuwenberg acted for the plaintiff who alleged that the defendant municipality was negligent in its winter maintenance of the road where the accident that injured the plaintiff had occurred. The plaintiff claimed her injuries disabled her from working and most activities of daily living. While the Jury found the parties shared liability it awarded the plaintiff damages of $3,576,600. The Jury also found the plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages. The plaintiff later appealed and was partly successful in that the BC Court of Appeal set aside the Jury finding that she had failed to mitigate her damages (see: Rhodes v. Surrey (City), 2016 BCSC 1880).
Brian Brooke, J. Scott Stanley, and Jeffrey Nieuwenburg were co-counsel for the plaintiff who was awarded $790,000 in damages as compensation for suffering a significant brain injury . The injury was the result of a shove in retaliation for the Plaintiff teasing the Defendant in the aftermath of a bachelor party. The BC court reviewed the law regarding liability in connection with stag parties and in the result awarded the firm’s client $790,000 in damages.
Angela Bespflug was counsel for the successful respondents on this appeal of a class action certification decision related to adverse side effects associated with hair loss medication.
Scott Stanley and Brandon Souza represented two young girls, who were 15 and 11 at the time of the accident. Both sustained spinal fractures and one was rendered a paraplegic. Both girls were passengers in their mother’s vehicle which was struck by another vehicle that crossed into their lane during a snow storm. The driver that crossed into their lane was found 100% at fault for the accident.
Stephen Gibson represented the Plaintiff who was injured by a slide tackle during a recreational soccer game, by an unregistered, unidentified player from the opposing team. The rules of the game were stipulated in the registration documentation, which provided for a non-contact and no-slide tackling rule, which was unlike normal FIFA rules. The primary issue during the summary trial was whether the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, whether the Defendants fell below the standard of care, and whether the Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the Defendants’ acts. The court ruled that the Plaintiff was sufficiently proximate to the Defendants to be owed a duty of care, that the Defendants fell below the standard of care by not ensuring all players were familiar with the modified rules of the game, and that the failure to inform all players of the modified rules, caused the unidentified player to slide tackle the Plaintiff. The Defendants were found to be 100% liable for the Plaintiff’s damages.
Kevin Gourlay was counsel for a 44-year-old general contractor who was injured in two rear-end motor vehicle accidents. The accidents left him with significant ongoing pain in his neck and back that limited his ability to work as he had prior to the accidents. After a 5-day trial, the Court awarded damages totalling $468,365, plus costs. The judgment included damages for the plaintiff’s future lost earning capacity of $285,845.
Scott Stanley and Mike Murphy represented the Plaintiffs in this case involving mild and moderate brain injuries that the plaintiffs sustained as two passengers when the driver of their vehicle lost control on the highway and crashed into a ditch. The court awarded $943,889.36 and $1,525,404.77, respectively.
Scott Stanley represented the Plaintiff on this appeal from a finding that a Defendant driver was not insured under the insurance policy of a leasing vehicle. The Defendant driver only had a $1 million policy limit with ICBC but the Plaintiff’s damages were $1.6 million. The Plaintiff sought to obtain the additional $600,000 from the insurance policy of the leasing company. The Plaintiff was not successful at trial but succeeded on the appeal.
Kevin Gourlay acted for a massage therapist who sustained soft tissue injuries to her back in left-turn accident. The defendant argued that our client was wholly or partially at fault for the accident. Chief Justice Hinkson found the defendant to be entirely at fault for causing the accident and awarded damages totalling $373,424. This included $190,000 for lost earning capacity as the plaintiff’s injuries would likely affect her future career as a medical doctor.
John Cameron represented a Canadian UFC fighter (J.D.), who was working on fighting his way back to the Octagon. Before he could do so, he was hit by a car while bicycling. The Defendants said J.D. was 50% to blame for the accident and offered him $25,000 before Mr. Cameron took on the case. A jury found that the car driver was 90% to blame for the accident and awarded J.D. $340,000 for the injuries that ended J.D.’s dream of continuing to fight in the UFC.
Mr. Cameron represented SG at trial in BC Supreme Court and she successfully achieved an award for compensation more than three times the insurer’s best pre-trial offer. She was awarded $120,000.00 for pain and suffering, $175,000.00 for diminished earning capacity and a past loss of earnings of $40,000.00. She was also awarded $10,000.00 for future cost of future medical care.
Kevin Hyde was counsel for a plaintiff property developer who successfully sued the Defendant on a failed real estate transaction, obtaining damages for breach of contract, as well as pre-judgment interest and costs.
Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for the plaintiff, an emergency room doctor who sustained a concussion when he was rear-ended by a bus. Sadly, he was among the unlucky and statistically small minority of individuals who suffer long-term disabling symptoms as a result of a concussion. That concussion prevented him from being able to return to the practice of medicine.
Result: After a 29-day trial, he received judgment of just under $6,000,000 for damages, primarily resulting from his lost earning capacity as a doctor.
This was a related case to the case involving police officer EJ, noted above. In addition to obtaining compensation at trial for EJ’s injuries. EJ was also awarded compensation for approximately $10,000 of “sick bank” credits he had used while off work recovering from his injuries. ICBC appealed the decision regarding the sick bank credits but the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that ICBC was required to reimburse EJ for the loss of the credits.
In this appeal, Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for two homeowners that were denied coverage by their insurance company, Wawanesa, after their house was destroyed by a furnace explosion. Wawanesa took the position that they were not entitled to coverage because the home had been “vacant” for more than 30 days and because they had not notified Wawanesa of a “material change” in circumstances. The homeowners lost at trial with the trial judge upholding Wawanesa’s denial of coverage. Scott and Kevin took the file over after trial and were successful in having the Court of Appeal reverse the trial judge’s finding on the basis of a 1932 Supreme Court of Canada decision that had not been given to the trial judge.
Kevin Gourlay acted for a young woman and mother of three who was injured in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of trial, she continued to suffer from mid-back pain as a result of the accident. The Court awarded damages of $91,700, including $60,000 for pain and suffering.
In Joba v. Basant Holdings Ltd, Kevin Hyde successfully defended a corporate client in a contractual dispute. The claim was dismissed in its entirety and costs were awarded to the client.
Kyla Taggart was 10 years old when she was struck by the defendant’s vehicle as she attempted to cross the road outside her elementary school. Kyla was in or near an unmarked crosswalk. The defendant took the position that the accident was not her fault and that Kyla’s mother was partially to blame for allowing Kyla to walk home. The Court agreed that the accident was 100% the fault of the defendant driver after accepting evidence that cars in the curb lane had stopped to allow Kyla to cross the road.
Scott Stanley and Jeff Nieuwenburg acted for the Plaintiff who lost his life savings during the stock market crash of 2008. The elderly Plaintiff had been investing with Canaccord who allowed him to participate in a highly risky option trading program. The Court found that Canaccord failed to properly screen the Plaintiff for suitability for the options trading program and awarded him $212,000 for his losses.
YW an elderly woman, fell and broke her hip when a bus driver accelerated into traffic without waiting for her to be safely seated. The transit company refused to accept responsibility and offered her $1.00 to settle her case prior to trial. Mr. Cameron took the matter to trial in the BC Supreme Court and YW was eventually awarded over $100,000 in damages.
KPW was a construction worker who injured his back in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to trial ICBC was prepared to offer him only $42,000 for his injuries and the impact on his employment. Mr. Cameron took the matter to the BC Supreme Court and KPW was eventually awarded over $120,000 in damages for his injuries and lost earnings.
Scott Stanley successfully acted for the infant plaintiffs who were injured in a serious motor vehicle accident. The Court found that both drivers were negligent which allowed the plaintiffs to collect damages from each of them.
Scott Stanley successfully defended an appeal by the Defendants who were found liable for failing to correctly place warning signs in a construction zone. The Defendants tried to argue that a legal doctrine protected road maintenance contractors such that they cannot be held legally responsible if the driver is partially at fault for causing the accident. The Court refused this argument and accepted Scott’s submission that the presence of some degree of fault by a driver does not prevent a contractor from also being at fault if the roads are poorly maintained. The Court dismissed the Defendants appeal. This is considered one of the leading cases in British Columbia on the doctrine of ordinary care.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiff at a jury trial. The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered from severe post traumatic headaches. The Defendant and his insurer denied the severity of the Plaintiff’s symptoms and tried unsuccessfully to challenge the credibility of the Plaintiff who was hard working and who had never missed a day of work before the accident and who tried multiple times to return to work. The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $2,203,719 essentially accepting every aspect of his claim.
Alex Sayn-Wittgenstein successfully opposed an attempt by ICBC to try and accept a settlement offer that had been, according to the court, “clearly and unequivocally revoked.”
Mr. Cameron was co-counsel in Albert v. Politano, Vancouver Registry No. M104190 where a jury awarded a boxer with a very promising career over $1 Million in damages for career-ending injuries for a motor vehicle accident. This was 20 times the amount the insurance company had assessed his losses at. That award was upheld in its entirety by the BC Court of Appeal.
Scott Stanley successfully defended an appeal by the Defendants who applied to dismiss a claim prior to trial. The Defendants were unsuccessful at the lower Court and the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling and dismissed the appeal. The proceeding involved a claim against a municipality for failing to properly install speed bumps which contributed to an accident.
Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay acted for the Plaintiff in this case involving an emergency room doctor that was injured in a rear-end accident which resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury that prevented him from being able to practice medicine. The trial was scheduled to be heard over 35 days. At issue on this application was whether the Defendants were entitled to have the trial heard by a jury rather than a judge sitting alone. We were successful in arguing that the matter was better decided by a judge sitting alone and the court ordered that the Defendant’s jury notice be struck. While jury trials can be the best method of determining the parties’ respective rights, a 35-day trial on a non-criminal matter would be very rare and difficult to manage.
On a dark and foggy morning in February, 2007, the plaintiff was hit on Steveston Highway. Because of his serious injuries, our client had no recollection of the accident. The only witnesses were the defendant and his passenger but the passenger sadly passed away shortly after the accident (and unrelated to the accident). The question was whether the defendant driver was partially at fault for hitting the plaintiff who was admittedly dressed in dark clothing and on the highway when the accident occurred. The Court found that the defendant was 50% responsible for the accident. We were able to demonstrate that the defendant was driving too fast for the foggy conditions and that he was driving far too close to the curb in the over-sized curb lane; the side of his vehicle was almost in the gutter and he was driving in an area of the highway where one would routinely see cyclists.
Mr. Cameron represented EJ, a Vancouver police officer, who sustained injuries to his back and neck after his patrol car was rammed by a suspect in a stolen vehicle. EJ’s injuries compromised some of the overtime opportunities available to him in the police. Mr. Cameron represented EJ at trial in BC Supreme Court. Prior to the trial ICBC offered EJ $50,000. EJ was awarded over $120,000 at trial.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiff who was a hard working waitress who injured her back in a car accident. She was only able to work part time and Scott convinced the Court to compensate her for the days she could not work, including her tips. The total award to the Plaintiff was $332,000.
Daryl Brown represented a motorcyclist who suffered life altering orthopedic injuries and a brain injury. The main issue was if the plaintiff had ever worked in the past and if that meant she was not entitled to past and future wage loss. This case was proven without the extensive use of historical tax returns. Regardless, the court found that due to injury the plaintiff missed out on opportunities to work and therefore, awarded her over $1,600,000 for all her losses.
The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She was ultimately diagnosed with fibromyalgia. At trial she was represented by David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. The trial judge awarded significant damages for diminished earning capacity despite the Plaintiff having been diligent and not missing any work up to the time of trial.
ICBC appealed arguing that the Judge erred in awarding these damages because the judge relied on “common experience that a person with a stable but persistent energy-draining (missing something) ICBC argued that this was speculative and there was no evidence to suggest this is so. While the Plaintiff’s total damages were reduced slightly at the appeal to $475,000, the BC Court of Appeal was quick to dismiss the above argument finding it was simply a matter of common sense that chronic pain takes its toll. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons: Accepting that, to use the expression used at trial and at the hearing of this appeal, Ms. Morlan’s condition had “plateaued”, the fact remains that she would forever suffer from debilitating chronic pain along with headaches, symptoms that could be reduced, but not eliminated, by medication. In other words, throughout each and every day of her life, Ms. Morlan would have to cope with some level of discomfort. In my view, it was open to the trial judge to find—essentially as a matter of common sense—that constant and continuous pain takes its toll and that, over time, such pain will have a detrimental effect on a person’s ability to work, regardless of what accommodations an employer is prepared to make.The Plaintiff was represented at trial by Mr. David Kolb and Mr. Cameron. Her appeal was conducted by Mr. Kolb, Mr. Cameron and senior appeal counsel, Mr. Barry Fraser.
Scott Stanley and Kevin Gourlay represented the Plaintiff who was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had cut him off and was responsible for the accident. The Defendant also disputed the magnitude of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that the Defendant was responsible for the accident as the Plaintiff was established in the lane before being hit by the Defendant. The Defendant simply failed to see what he ought to have seen: the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s evidence that he had suffered soft tissue injuries to his shoulder, neck and back was accepted. Damages of just under $50,000 were awarded, including $42,500 for pain and suffering.
Our client had suffered a stroke during open heart surgery caused by an air embolism entering her blood stream. The defendants disputed their liability for the injuries alleged as well as the severity of the consequences of the stroke. On this application, the defendants sought an order compelling our client to produce all content from her Facebook and Twitter profiles, as well as documents from her hard drive, iPhone, and digital camera. The court accepted our argument that it must balance disclosure with privacy rights and, in this case, there was no reason to invade the plaintiff’s privacy. The judge held: “I am unable to envisage any rational justification for breaching the privacy rights of an individual in civil proceedings simply because it is alleged that the individual’s general health, enjoyment of life and employability are directly at issue. Merely because a record may be made of the communication shouldn’t make it any different than a private telephone conversation. If not, surely applications in civil proceedings for recordings of private communications can’t be far behind.” This does not mean social media will not commonly have to be produced – one should always assume that everything they put on the internet can become public.
We acted for a young architect who was injured in two motor vehicle accidents. The other drivers in each accident admitted that they were at fault but challenged the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court accepted that the plaintiff had suffered serious long-term soft tissue injuries in the accidents and awarded damages of over $190,000. That included awards of $70,000 for pain and suffering and $90,000 for lost earning capacity.
This was an application regarding costs following a 29-day trial in which the plaintiff had been awarded nearly $6,000,000 in damages following a fall at a night club that had resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs from the defendant insurer despite the insurer not being obligated to indemnify the plaintiff for her losses.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the motorcyclist who lost control of his motor cycle when he drove over an uneven sheet of pavement in a construction zone. The Court found that the company responsible for the construction project had negligently placed the signage to warn of the uneven pavement edge and failed to respond to evidence that the signage in place had not been working. It was established at trial that the person responsible for placing the signage had never even bothered to read the required manual in its entirety and that his answers to basic questions “strained his credulity” and which ultimately resulted in the Court finding the company 80% responsible for the accident.
Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the Plaintiff in this proceeding involving an eye injury that occurred on September 12, 2007. The Plaintiff was helping the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, with some renovations on her home and was being assisted by her adult autistic son, Kyle Alexander Keyes. The Plaintiff was not wearing safety glasses; knew the son was autistic; and asked the son to assist him.
The son was holding a board for the Plaintiff and moved unexpectedly while the Plaintiff was about to strike the board with a hammer. This caused the Plaintiff’s hammer to strike another piece of metal which resulted in a metal splinter entering the Plaintiff’s eye and the eventual loss of this eye.
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was liable for permitting her autistic son to work with the Plaintiff and for failing to warn him about the dangers of working with her autistic son.
The case went to trial on May 30, 2011 and was heard by a Judge and Jury. The jury found that the Defendant, Destiny Elizabeth Smith, was 20% liable for the injuries to Mr. Laurie.
KD was a university student who was injured when a vehicle she was riding in was struck by a stolen car. Her injuries affected her work as a lifeguard at the university pool and persisted after graduation as she entered the workforce. Prior to obtaining Mr. Cameron’s help she was advised that her case was a soft tissue injury, which ICBC valued at $6,500. Her case eventually went to trial and she was awarded over $100,000 in compensation.
Scott Stanley successfully brought an appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff who had her case dismissed at a jury trial conducted by another counsel. The Plaintiff was an elderly lady who fell and injured herself when she stepped on a large crack on a municipal sidewalk. Scott successfully argued that the jury had been given the wrong instruction by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal awarded a new trial.
Stephen Gibson and Irina Kordic represented the Plaintiff who was an injured pedestrian. In this case, the Defendant drove down a quiet, residential street, intending to pick up the Plaintiff who was standing in the middle of the road. As the Defendant drove towards the Plaintiff, he ultimately and unintentionally struck the Plaintiff with his vehicle. Liability was denied and the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune for standing in the middle of the road. Liability was found in favour of the Plaintiff 100% because he reasonably expected the Defendant to stop short of where the Plaintiff was standing. The Plaintiff was likely to require a total knee replacement in his later years as a result of advancing arthritis, but he was retraining in a new profession as a sound engineer. The damages were awarded at $1,196,000.
CM was 46 years of age when involved in two motor vehicle accidents. She had worked steadily for 30 years before the accidents and had been very healthy. She was a high energy, motivated individual in all aspects of her life before the accidents. After the accidents she had to seek employment in a less demanding job and leaving a job she loved was a huge blow for her. After the accidents she was a different woman. Her energy was very low compared to what it was before. She developed fibromyalgia and was in constant pain, made endurable by taking large amounts of painkillers and nerve block drugs. ICBC offered to settle her case for $150,000 before trial. Mr. Cameron assisted Mr. David Kolb and took CM’s case to trial, where she was awarded $610,000 in damages.
Jury trial involving a 50-year-old mechanic from Lebanon who had immigrated to Vancouver in 1990. He was injured in two motor vehicle accidents which resulted in a herniated disc in his back. That injury prevented him from being able to work as he had previously. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had ongoing disabilities arising from the accidents. After a three-week trial in front of a jury, the jury awarded Mr. Kassem damages of $544,166, including $490,000 for lost earning capacity.
IV was injured in two accidents. The damage to the vehicles was modest, but she suffered injuries to her neck, back and hips which did not improve. ICBC told IV that in their view her accidents were too minor to deserve any compensation. IV’s injuries persisted in spite of medical treatment by her family doctor and other therapy, and over time her condition deteriorated. Even though IV had health problems before the accidents, it was clear to her that the two car accidents had made her overall health much worse. Mr. Cameron represented IV in a trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court awarded IV more than $230,000 in damages plus compensation for the legal costs of fighting her case.
Joe Murphy, Q.C. represented the plaintiff who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury at a night club. The plaintiff had been about to start a legal career at the time of the accident. The court awarded $5,934,712 for the loss of a career that ended before it began.
The plaintiff was a young plumber injured in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted fault for the accident but suggested the plaintiff’s injuries were not as disabling as alleged. The court agreed that the plaintiff had suffered significant injuries that would have a long-term impact on his ability to work as a plumber. Damages of over $400,000 were awarded, including $75,000 for pain and suffering, $250,000 for lost future earnings, and $76,000 for future care needs.
Scott Stanley successfully acted for the estate of a deceased women against her insurance broker. The deceased had been involved in an acrimonious divorce with her husband who lured her to their former home and murdered her before setting fire to the home and committing suicide. The insurance company properly denied the claim on the basis that it does not cover intentional acts. Scott achieved a partial settlement from the insurance company and successfully sued the insurance broker for the balance of $160,000. Scott convinced the Court that the insurance broker should have recommended to the deceased that she change her policy so that she would be protected if her former husband did intentional acts against the property. This case is one of the leading cases in British Columbia dealing with the negligence of insurance brokers.
Scott Stanley successfully acted for the Plaintiff who sustained what many thought was a minor injury to his knee. The knee injury made it difficult for the Plaintiff to do his work and affected other aspects of his life. Even though the Plaintiff had not missed any work and had an accommodating employer, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $350,000 for future wage loss and assessed the total damages at $555,000.
Years after her car was T-boned by a vehicle which had run a stop sign, SB still suffered from back and hip pain. Deeming ICBC’s offer of $10,000 in compensation as insufficient, SB took her case to Mr. Cameron, who brought the case to trial and helped her secure seven times that number in damages.
Scott Stanley and Irina Kordic acted for the plaintiff in this proceeding involving a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 8, 2003. The Plaintiff was struck from behind by another vehicle and alleged that he sustained a concussion and soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff alleged that he experienced permanent cognitive and physical symptoms as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.
The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff sustained a concussion and further denied that he had any permanent cognitive or physical symptoms as a result of the accident.
The Plaintiff’s case went to trial on April 14, 2009 and was heard by a Judge and Jury.
The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $638,000 damages.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiff who was a metal fabricator who injured his neck, back and shoulders in a car accident. Even though he continued to work full time, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $160,000 for lost overtime. The total award to the Plaintiff was $268,000.
Scott Stanley and Joe Murphy, Q.C. successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial. The Plaintiff sustained a concussion which the Defendant and her insurer strongly contested. After several days of evidence and demonstrating the profound nature of the Plaintiff’s difficulties, the Defendant’s insurer agreed to pay the full insurance policy limit of $1,000,000 plus the Plaintiff’s costs. The Defendant’s insurer tried to withhold payment of the $1,000,000 settlement funds until the amount of the costs was sorted out. Scott and Joe successfully obtained an order that the $1,000,000 be paid immediately and obtained a further order that the Defendants pay double costs to the Plaintiff for refusing to accept an early settlement offer from the Plaintiff.
Stephen Gibson and Irina Kordic represented the Plaintiff who was 6 years old when he was struck by a motor vehicle and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Eight years after the accident, the Plaintiff’s mother sought assistance from the Defendant for medical benefits. The benefits were denied on the basis that the limitation period expired 2 years after the last payment made by I.C.B.C., despite the Plaintiff being a minor when the limitation expired. The Plaintiff alleged negligence against the adjuster, and bad faith against I.C.B.C. The Plaintiff was successful on a summary trial application by the Defendant to strike the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims would not be struck, and that they were permitted to proceed to trial on the basis that it was not plain and obvious that the Plaintiff was owed a duty of care to be informed of a lapsing limitation, or that the limitation date had expired. This was a novel finding of law in the area of potential negligence by an insurance adjuster in administering first party claims.
AF injured her back in a motor vehicle accident prior to becoming a police officer. Her injuries affected her training at the Police Academy and also limited some of the overtime opportunities available to her in the police. Mr. Cameron assisted another lawyer, Mr. David Kolb, in conducting a trial for A. in B.C. Supreme Court. Prior to the trial ICBC offered AF $15,000. AF was awarded over $85,000 at trial.
SR, a police officer, suffered injuries to his hips and lower back when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while off-duty. His accident occurred while he was trying to cross a highway and was struck by another vehicle. A key issue in the case was who was at fault for the accident. ICBC took the position that SR was to blame for the accident. Mr. Cameron assisted SR at trial and the other driver was found to be 90% to blame for the accident. SR received over $125,000 in damages for his injuries.
JC was a fit young man whose knees were injured in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to consulting Mr. Cameron he had been offered $5,000 in compensation for his injuries. Mr. Cameron represented JC at trial and he was awarded over $45,000 in damages.
CL was a fit and active real estate agent who was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended. Prior to retaining John M. Cameron Law Corporation he was offered $10,000 in compensation by ICBC. The matter eventually went to trial and Mr. Cameron assisted CL in obtaining a damage award in excess of $75,000.
Joe Murphy, Q.C. was successful on behalf of the firm’s client Ms. Chow in a case where all of the defendants were at fault for causing a motorcycle accident that seriously injured Ms. Chow. The six defendant motorcyclists were travelling at a very high speed and riding abreast across both lanes of the road on which the Plaintiff (Ms. Chow) was travelling on her motorcycle. Although only one defendant actually struck Ms. Chow’s motorcycle, and only three of the six defendants were driving on the wrong side of the road, we successfully argued that all of the defendants were equally at fault for creating the dangerous conditions that led to the accident by reason of their participation in a joint and dangerous activity. Liability was found to rest with all six defendants.
NG was a Starbucks barista who was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended. ICBC denied her any compensation on the basis of its low velocity impact program. Mr. Cameron took on her case and by the time of trial NG had become an RCMP officer. NG was awarded over $25,000 in compensation by the Court.
DH was a waitress/bartender who injured her knee in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to retaining John M. Cameron Law Corporation, she was offered a $500 settlement for what ICBC described as a minor soft tissue injury. Her case eventually went to trial and she was awarded over $65,000 in compensation. Mr. Cameron successfully proved that DH was also entitled to compensation for lost tips even though there were no formal records of the tips maintained at her work place.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiffs who are members of the Canadian rock band Nickelback. The former managers of the band claimed that they owned the copyright to one of the bands earlier albums. Scott successfully established that the copyright was owned solely by the members of the band. This case is one of the leading cases in Canada dealing with the acquisition and perfection of copyrights in a musical work.
Scott Stanley successfully represented the Plaintiff who sued her dentists for providing improper care following the removal of a wisdom tooth. This is one of the few cases in British Columbia where a dentist has been successfully sued. At the time of this trial, Scott had only been a lawyer for 2 years.