Our Future Home
JMR Law will be moving to a new office located on the 8th floor of 980 Howe Street in the summer of 2015
Our team is often at the forefront of provincial and national matters of interest. You can find some of our media interviews, as well as our thoughts about our cases and other legal issues, here.
JMR Law will be moving to a new office located on the 8th floor of 980 Howe Street in the summer of 2015
In June of this year, Kevin Jarvis, Keith McGee, John Rice and Mike Elliott attended a team building trip to Pebble Beach golf club in northern California.
This case shows that exercising and enjoying life after an accident doesn’t mean that you have not been injured or are not suffering. In many cases, fitness can be a coping mechanism and form of treatment for chronic pain.
In the recent decision of Felix v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 166, a designated driver who was injured when her inebriated passenger grabbed control of the steering wheel and caused a serious accident was denied third party liability coverage for her injuries suffered in the accident.
Keith, a founding partner of Jarvis McGee Rice LLP and former Canadian Air Force pilot, joined the board of the Delta Hospital Foundation six years ago and has served as its chair for the past year.
In a precedent setting ruling, the BC Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the award a trial judge gave to Gloria Clark for yoga treatment until her life expectancy in the amount of $28,252.38. ICBC has long resisted paying injured victims for yoga treatment for soft tissue injuries. The BC Court of Appeal explained the trial judge made no error of legal principle in finding on the medical evidence and the testimony of Ms. Clark that yoga assisted her in managing the chronic pain she suffered after a car crash.
In British Columbia, owners of homes and cabins must ensure that their premises are reasonably safe for guests. This duty is set out in the BC Occupiers Liability Act. At the same time we all, as guests at someone else’s home, have a duty to take reasonable care for our own safety, even if the premises are unsafe.
In some cases when a person is injured as unsafe premises, fault for the injury will be divided between the owner of the home (who should have made it reasonably safe), and the injured guest (who should have been more careful). One recent example is the decision of Supreme Court Justice Dardi in a case called Doucette v. McDaniel 2014 BCSC 42.
In a recent decision by Mr. Justice Grauer, a couple was ordered to pay over $200,000 in damages to ICBC for making wilfully false statements following a motor vehicle accident.
In ICBC v. Panag, the Defendants were involved in a collision in 2006. The Defendants and the other driver disagreed about how the accident happened. The Defendant claimed to have found an independent witness to the accident who supported the Defendants’ version of events; however, the witness turned out to be a friend of the Defendants. ICBC conducted an investigation and claimed that the Defendants had made two wilfully false statements to ICBC about how the accident happened, and had conspired to deceive ICBC about the status of the “witness” to the accident.
In the recent decision of Clark v. Kouha, Ms. Justice Powers confirmed that yoga was a medically justified care expense for a plaintiff suffering from chronic pain, and was recoverable as both a special damage and a cost of future care.
The Plaintiff, represented by John Rice and Jon Harbut of our firm, used regular yoga as part of her chronic pain management following a 2006 motor vehicle accident. Counsel for ICBC argued that the plaintiff should not be entitled to recover the cost of yoga and should not be awarded the cost of yoga treatments in the future.
In the world of insurance there are really only three ways for an insurer to defend any claim.
The first and simplest way for an insurer to avoid payment is to be able to say that you are the one responsible for your injuries and so you cannot look to them for compensation.
The second way, and this applies in every case, is for the insurer to argue that your injuries are not that serious and so these injuries warrant very modest compensation.