Mussio Goodman is pleased to announce our very successful 10-day jury trial where our client was ultimately awarded well over $1.2 million.

Our client was a bright young PhD student looking forward to a long and successful career in archeology. She had dreamed to become a professor at a top tier research university, and it seemed that there was nothing to stand in her way. She had graduated from both UBC and Oxford, and was just about to accept a PhD offer from a top US school when she was rear-ended by the defendant in 2019.

Due to her injuries, our client could not commence her PhD program and had all but given up hope before she finally thought she was ready to try again a couple of years later. In 2021 she started her PhD with an accommodating professor who described her as the “top 1%” of students she had ever come across. However, our client was not able to keep up with the intensely physical demands of archeology work, and quickly started falling behind. The faculty at UBC was content to let our client pace herself and extend deadlines, but it was clear she would never be a competitive candidate for a highly sought after professorship. At best, she might go on to be a part time college teacher or lab tech.

Because our client was always honest with her doctors, she reported to her GP when she was feeling some improvement. Despite the medical experts agreeing that our client had been seriously injured, ICBC focused their submissions at trial on the few records that showed improvement, and made every effort to make our client look like a liar.  ICBC argued that our client quickly improved after the accident but then somehow must have been injured later – all without any evidence. ICBC submitted that the jury should award our client a few thousand dollars to cover some physio.

The jury however, made up of eight people selected from a cross section of society, sided with the overwhelming evidence in favour of our client.

Congratulations to our client who refused to back down and fought for her day in Court. We are immensely proud of her fortitude, the jury’s keen sense of fairness, as well as the results we achieved on our client’s behalf.

Mussio Goodman is pleased to report our success in Court after defense counsel sought medical records of our client just two weeks before trial.

In Singh v. Liske 2023 BCSC 1745, the Court agreed that our client should not be expected to produce additional medical records when trial is imminent.

Our client was 33 years old when she was rear-ended in two separate motor vehicle accidents in the Spring of 2017. As a result of the accidents, she was left with significant long-term injuries to her brain, neck, shoulder, lower back, extremities, and debilitating headaches. Psychologically, our client was left with multiple illnesses including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and various cognitive difficulties from her brain injury.

Just over two weeks before trial, defense counsel brought a court application seeking additional medical records of our client. Our firm took the position that it was now simply too late for these requests to be seriously entertained. Our lawyers argued that the lack of timeliness on behalf of defense counsel introduces unnecessary chaos when our client and firm are in the final stages of trial preparation.

Master Bilawich of the BC Supreme Court agreed, writing the following reasons:

[8] What has happened here is, unfortunately, what happens all too regularly in applications that come before me, is that the parties are effectively two weeks before trial, and a fairly substantial document application is being made seeking documents from non-parties, to be provided within five business days. For the same reasons set out in Chohan, Forstved, and Kaur, I agree with those decisions that at some point you are just simply too close to trial to be entertaining these sorts of applications. They are incredibly disruptive to trial preparation. They could potentially lead to disruption of the trial.

[9] This is really something that, as all experienced counsel know, ought to be pursued a whole lot earlier. Perhaps in this case there was hope that there would be a settlement at mediation. That has not occurred. But regardless of the timing for the mediation, this is something that ought to have been pursued earlier than it was. In my view, it is simply too late and too disruptive at this point to grant the orders that are being sought. For the same reasons that are set out in the Chohan, Forstved, and Kaur decisions, I dismiss the application.

While medical records are understandably relevant in personal injury proceedings, a plaintiff cannot be expected to produce extensive records on the eve of trial. This is especially true when the records need to be obtained from parties that are not directly involved in the litigation. Our clients can rest assured knowing that Mussio Goodman will shield them from these sorts of unreasonable demands by defense counsel.

Mussio Goodman is pleased to announced our success in removing an executor who is in a conflict of interest with the administration of the estate.

The deceased mother was survived by six children who were named as equal beneficiaries to her estate. Two of the siblings were named co-executors under the will, with one of them eventually renouncing his executorship due to a conflict of interest.

We were recently successful in an application put forth by our client and her sister to remove the remaining executrix as a result of her disqualifying conflict of interest and inability to act in the best interests of all beneficiaries.

This case involved a complicated and acrimonious family history, with severe mistrust in place between the siblings. Prior to the passing of the mother, her estate was being managed by Solus trust as a result of a previous court order. The executrix and 3 other siblings then commenced an action attempting to subvert Solus’ authority and power to sell the estate property.

A certificate of pending litigation was placed on the property and our client and her sister were named defendants in that action, along with Solus. This action was later abandoned but not discontinued or withdrawn.

We argued that the executrix was a in a disqualifying conflict of interest because if she discontinued the action, she would be under a duty to recover costs from herself and her co-plaintiffs.

Justice Girn agreed, writing:

[56] I conclude that by commencing actions against the Estate, Gail could be liable to pay for costs to the Estate. This puts Gail in a disabling conflict of interest.

There is no way to get around this conflict of interest.

We also argued that the executrix’s position with respect to unpaid rent from one of the siblings demonstrated her bias towards that particular beneficiary. Again, the Court agreed with our position:

[57] As well, Gail’s steadfast position relating to debts owed by Thomas to the Estate have demonstrated that she is not capable of being neutral in order to act in the best interests of all of the beneficiaries and not just Thomas. As executrix of the Estate, she must consider whether rent is owing by Thomas to the Estate. By refusing to even look into this, in my view, Gail’s position endangers the administration of the Estate to the detriment of all of the beneficiaries.

[58] While Gail may believe that Hazel wanted Thomas’ work in maintaining and improving the Dewdney Trunk Property to be compensated, the evidence does not support this and is not consistent with the position of two of the beneficiaries, Susan and Patricia. In particular, the evidence reflects Gail’s strong animosity towards Patricia for her decision to seek Solus’ appointment.

[59] I note that Hazel’s will is silent on the issue of rent payable by Thomas. She could have considered Thomas’ contribution to the farm but chose not to. Gail

cannot impose her views of what Hazel’s wishes were in respect of Thomas living on the property and his contributions.

Removing an executor is never easy. However, this case demonstrates Mussio Goodman’s steadfast commitment to resolving estate matters that involve complicated family dynamics and difficult emotions. Mussio Goodman pays careful attention to detail and employs creative strategies to ensure we develop strong legal arguments while obtaining the best evidence to support them in court.