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.

Angela Bespflug acted as counsel in this sister case to Tiller v. Canada, 2020 FC 321. This action and its settlement provided compensation to female RCMP members who were subjected to sexual harassment and assault in the RCMP workplace.

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.