Lam v. Lifemark Health Corp.
Leung Wai Lam
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Lifemark Health Corp. aka Lifemark Health Management Inc. aka Lifemark Health Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Ken Henderson
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Vanja Mudrinic
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Lori Nishi
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Anne Marsden
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Joffe
Law Firm / Organization
Harper Grey LLP
Lawyer(s)

Aman Taggar

Andrew Huber
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Lorna MacDougall
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Tim Hunt
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Tracy Krahn
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Jenny Leard
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Canadian Back Institute Operating Limited Partnership aka CBI Health
Law Firm / Organization
Harper Grey LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel J. Reid

Ognjen Dukic
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Yvonne Lynch
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Physiomoves Physiotherapy Clinic
Law Firm / Organization
Harper Grey LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel J. Reid

Tiphanie Ge
Law Firm / Organization
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Bellomo

Susan MacLennan
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Tai McLavy
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
M. Dunn
Law Firm / Organization
Harper Grey LLP
Lawyer(s)

Aman Taggar

Prab Dhaliwal
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Geoff Gordon
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Ellen Riley
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Background: Leung Wai Lam, the appellant, had sustained a workplace injury in 2012 and subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim. He initiated a civil claim for damages against various respondents involved in assessing and providing treatment for his injury. The action, which commenced on August 30, 2022, was dismissed by Justice Milman on October 13, 2023, due to overlapping statutory bars.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The defendants argued that the civil claim was barred by several statutes, including Section 332 of the Workers Compensation Act, Section 56 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 127 of the Workers Compensation Act, limitations under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and the Limitation Act. Additionally, two orders required Lam to post security for costs totaling $9,000, with $5,000 ordered by Justice Hunter and $4,000 by Justice Griffin. Lam challenged these orders.

Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed Lam's applications to vary or cancel the security for costs orders. The court found no errors in the principles or law applied by the justices in the lower court and ruled that the appeal lacked merit. The statutory bars were deemed sufficient to preclude the appellant's action.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The appellant, Leung Wai Lam, was required to post a total of $9,000 as security for costs in favor of the respondents. No additional damages were awarded as the applications were dismissed.

Court of Appeals for British Columbia
CA49466
Employment law
$ 9,000
Respondent