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.

Scott Stanley and Joe Murphy, Q.C. successfully represented the young Plaintiff at this liability trial. They were successful in convincing the Court to place 25% fault on the other driver even though the Plaintiff was intoxicated and had run a stop sign.

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.