On February 1, 2025, after a two week trial and two days of jury deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in overwhelming favour of our client following a November 2019 car accident.

Our client had a long history of working full time in retail – often working 12-hour shifts five or six days a week. In 2018 our client left her retail job to find something new and meaningful. She found a position at a spa which seemed like the perfect fit – however, full time hours were not available right away. Rather than pass up the great opportunity, our client started part time while the spa owner started training her to take on a full-time management position.

Unfortunately, due to her injuries, our client was not able to return to work and realize these plans. Because she happened to be working part time when she was injured, ICBC argued that she would never have returned to full time work if the accident had not occurred. Because ICBC refused to make a reasonable settlement offer that accounted for her plans to return to full time hours, our client was forced to trial.

During trial, ICBC made a point of spending hours showing the jury our client’s social media posts – our client had not made her social media private as she had nothing to hide. ICBC argued that because she could smile on camera and sell homemade crafts at a market for a few hours a month that she was capable of returning to work.

Clearly, the jury disagreed. The jury awarded our client almost everything she claimed for and over 2 million dollars for her pain and suffering. In Canada, neither judges nor lawyers are allowed to suggest an award for pain and suffering – the court relies on the jury to reflect community standards. This is different from a trial by judge alone where the lawyers can cite similar cases and argue an appropriate dollar figure.

What the jury did not know is that in Canada there is a cap of about $450,000 for pain and suffering. After their initial verdict, the judge gave the jury a special instruction about this cap and explained to them that $450,000 would reflect catastrophic injuries like paraplegia. After late night deliberations, the jury ended up awarding $175,000 for pain and suffering.

All in all, the total award was about $1.3 million for pain and suffering, past and future wage loss, future care, and loss of housekeeping capacity. ICBC’s offers before trial were $115,000, $175,000, then $225,000.

This verdict comes only a few months after Mussio Goodman’s last jury trial in which our client similarly quadrupled ICBC’s last offer at trial.

We are pleased to announce that the BC Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with the position presented by partner Thomas O’Mahony of Mussio Goodman, holding that the trial judge had not considered all the evidence when assessing whether the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to find the driver in the hit and run case.

The Court of Appeal additionally dismissed the argument presented by the Respondent ICBC, clarifying the law that there is no ‘2-step’ assessment to determining whether a person has acted reasonably first at the scene of an accident, and then in the time frame thereafter. Justice Horsman, writing for the panel, stated:

[25]      I am not persuaded that the two-stage analysis set out in Cook is consistent with the language of s. 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act or with the jurisprudence interpreting that provision. Undoubtedly, the question of whether a plaintiff has made all reasonable efforts to identify the other driver requires consideration of the plaintiff’s conduct at the time of the collision, as well as afterwards. This is because the question of whether the standard has been met must be assessed in the full circumstances of the case. It is a single inquiry into the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts. There is, in my view, no justification in the language of s. 24(5), or the relevant case law, to bifurcate the analysis so as to create artificial constraints on what is meant to be a holistic assessment…

It is a reality that trial judges can and do make mistakes, just like everyone else. When this happens, it is important to have experienced appellate counsel like those at Mussio Goodman, who will fight to make sure that those mistakes don’t prejudice their clients.

Mussio Goodman is pleased to share our recent success following an eight-day trial in the BC Supreme Court. In Singh v Liske, 2023 BCSC 2016, the Court awarded over $600,000 to our client, who suffered both physical and psychological injuries following two motor vehicle accidents.

Our client, a 39-year-old career-driven woman, had immigrated to Canada from Fiji on a skilled worker visa shortly before her first accident. While in Fiji, she obtained a degree in finance and economics and worked as a personal financial analyst. She secured a banking advisor internship in Canada only a few months after her arrival, which she was in the process of completing when the first accident occurred. Following the first accident, she was unable to return to her internship program due to her accident-related injuries and symptoms. Despite ICBC’s argument that regardless of the accidents, the plaintiff may have never completed her internship and moved on to becoming a banking advisor, the court concluded otherwise, stating:

[73]      Ms. Singh worked at a bank for eight years before moving to Canada and then obtained a job in the banking industry despite her depression and the difficulties she was having adjusting to Canada.

[74]      I agree with the plaintiff’s assertion that but for the accident, the plaintiff would have remained at RBC and received her training income until the end of 2017 and then moved on to become a bank advisor in 2018 and that the base income of a bank advisor should be used, adjusted for yearly inflation up to the time of trial.

As a result, our client was awarded over $350,000 for her past and future wage loss.

Furthermore, our firm successfully rebutted ICBC’s argument that our client failed to mitigate her damages by not pursuing further treatments, despite her adherence to her doctors’ recommendations. ICBC submitted to the Court that her damages should have been reduced by 15%. The Court rejected this argument, stating:

[47]      Our Court of Appeal set out the law on failure to mitigate in Haug v. Funk, 2023 BCCA 110. This requires a defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that failure, in this case, to follow medical recommendations would have reduced Ms. Singh’s damages or symptoms.

[48]      The defendants say that Ms. Singh should have pursued more treatment modalities; and if she did so, given the positive prognosis for improvement, her symptoms would have been lessened.

[49]      Ms. Singh does not have a general practitioner. She relies upon the physicians at her clinic to provide her with medical advice and relies upon their opinions. She consulted with her treating physician at the medical clinic about all of her treatment choices. I agree with defence counsel that Ms. Singh advocated for the treatment choices and her physician agreed with her choices. In these circumstances, though, I am of the view that it was reasonable for her to follow their medical advice.

Singh v Liske exemplifies how ICBC will make unfounded arguments in an attempt to diminish all aspects of damages and undermine a plaintiff’s claim. In securing this favorable outcome for our client, Mussio Goodman demonstrated a robust understanding of both legal intricacies and the client’s unique circumstances. Through diligent representation, we effectively countered ICBC’s assertions, ensuring that our client’s rights were protected and upheld by the court. The decision not only reflects the strength of our advocacy but also underscores our commitment to pursuing justice for those we represent.