Bc Supreme Court Rule 7-5

[13] So I think they have only a limited reputation. They do not have the power to have a witness examined because I think it violates the property of a witness at common law. But I think they have the right to deal with issues of procedure, proportionality and privilege. The reasons for the verdict were released this week (Brooks v. Abbey Adelaide Holdings Inc.), which examines the procedural question of whether a registered party has the right to file motions when applying for an order by a counterparty that forces a preliminary hearing of a witness. In short, the court concluded that all registered parties have the right to file claims in the course of these applications, although standing is limited. Mr. Young gave the following reasons for this decision: Court Order Interests Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79, provides for the payment of interest before and after the judgment at a prescribed rate.

Interest rates are adjusted twice a year: on 1 January for the period from 1 January to 30 June and on 1 July for the period from 1 July to 31 December. The reasons for the decision were recently brought to my attention when I discussed the scope of the Court`s powers at case planning conferences. In particular, the Court held that rule 5-3 does not provide for the power to prevail over common law principles of privilege. In the most recent case (Galvon v. Hopkins), the plaintiff was injured in a collision with a motor vehicle. She brought an action for damages. In the subsequent action, the plaintiff did not present any forensic expert evidence to the defendant. This concerned the defendant, who held a case planning conference and obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to „inform the defendant`s lawyer of the name of the neurologist with whom the appointment had been arranged and the date of the appointment, and second, that the parties must immediately provide written notice to the opposing counsel if an appointment with medical experts is arranged for the plaintiff.

this communication shall contain the name of the expert, his opinion and the date of his appointment”. The applicant appealed, arguing that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make such orders under the Rules of Court. Justice Kloegman agreed and upheld the appeal. In that regard, the Court put forward the following reasons: 21. I agree with the argument of counsel for the applicant that rule 5(3) cannot be interpreted as allowing the judge or master of the case planning conference to disregard the principle of the prerogative of customary law. 22. In my view, Mr. Bouck was obsessed with resolving the dispute; Still a laudable and important goal of a case planning conference, but not at the cost of ignoring the limits of its competence. It may well be that this information could have been exchanged at a comparative conference, which is a voluntary and impartial process, but it should not be prescribed as part of the preparation of the process. 23. It did not seem to consider that the objective of the rules to avoid ambush proceedings applied only to evidence that would be used at trial, and not to expert advice obtained through consultation. 24.

By requiring the plaintiff to disclose the fact of her presence before a medical expert and to take the risk of an adverse conclusion if she did not call the expert to the trial, the master also infringed the plaintiff`s right to choose the witnesses she wished to call. Such interference is neither sanctioned nor justified by the rules of our Supreme Court, I might add. 25. Having concluded that our Rules of Procedure do not confer on the Chair of a Case Planning Conference the power to issue the orders issued by Mr Bouck, it follows that he did not have the power to do so. 26. The appeal is allowed and the orders of Maître Bouck are set aside. [1] THE COURT: I have been asked to decide whether a party to an application is represented at a hearing on the application of another party to hear a witness before trial under rule 7-5 of our new Civil Rules of the Supreme Court. The discount rate prescribed in Article 56(2)(a) shall be used in the calculation of the present value of future damages intended to compensate for or with reference to (a) the loss of future income due to a partial or total loss of earning capacity or (b) the loss of long-term care under the Family Compensation Act.

For all other future damages, the discount rate prescribed under § 56 (2) lit. b will be used. [12] I believe that the party has the right to comment on the scope and duration of the review to the extent that it relates to relevance and proportionality. Pursuant to subsection 56(2) of the Law and Fairness Act, RSBC 1996, c. 253, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has the power to enact: (a) a discount rate, which shall be deemed to be the future difference between the interest rate and the rate of increase in profits due to inflation and general productivity gains, and (b) a discount rate; which is considered to be the future difference between the interest rate and the interest rate of general price inflation. [2] Apparently, there is no authority on this point under the new civil rules. [14] That said, I allow the applicant to make the application. Effective April 30, 2014 and in accordance with British Columbia Regulation 74/2014, as amended by British Columbia Regulation 352/81, the prescribed discount rates are as follows:.