Defendants admit to legal responsibility for motor vehicle accident in this personal injury case
The British Columbia Supreme Court accepted that a motor vehicle accident caused injuries and found the injured woman entitled to damages, as well as costs until the day that she refrained from accepting a reasonable offer to settle.
The plaintiff in this case alleged that she suffered physical injuries, headaches, and psychological injuries as a result of an accident that occurred on Mar. 27, 2019. On that day, she was driving when another vehicle hit hers.
The defendants in this case were the driver and the owner of the other vehicle. Because they admitted liability for the accident, the trial issues revolved around the nature and extent of the injuries causally linked to the accident and the damages that the plaintiff should receive.
The trial, originally set for February 2023, was adjourned due to an application brought by the plaintiff. By that point, the parties had already made offers to settle but had failed to agree on an amount.
On Jan. 5, 2024, the defendants formally offered to settle by paying the plaintiff $278,789.64. Four days later, the plaintiff made her own formal offer to settle for $325,000. On Jan. 12, 2024, she made another settlement offer in the amount of $286,796.88, which would reduce the gap between the amounts requested by both sides to $8,000. None of these offers led to a successful settlement.
At trial, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of around $212,000, which was about $67,000 less than the defendants’ offer on Jan. 5, 2024. The court awarded the plaintiff costs due to her substantial success in the claim. The issue pending in the present application was the impact of the parties’ offers on the award of costs.
In Grewal v Fastlane Transport Limited, 2025 BCSC 67, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff her costs of the proceedings until Jan. 5, 2024. Both parties would bear their own costs after that date, which was the date of the defendants’ latest offer to settle.
First, the court held that the plaintiff should have accepted the reasonable offer dated Jan. 5, 2024 when the defendants made it. At that time, the plaintiff had the opportunity to consider her position at trial because she knew the evidence to be presented and the arguments to be made, the court said.
However, the court found that the plaintiff did make attempts to reasonably consider that offer and to resolve the matter via her Jan. 12, 2024 offer.
The court deemed it just for each party to bear their own costs after Jan. 5, 2024 in these circumstances, given that either could have avoided spending trial costs if they were more reasonable in dealing with this case.
Awarding the defendants the trial costs would impact the damages awarded to the plaintiff to the extent that she would not receive enough compensation for her injuries and losses resulting due to the defendants’ negligence, the court added.
The court noted that the defendants, with the benefit of an insurer, were in a better financial position. The defendants had much greater ability to close the $8,000 gap and to defend themselves than the plaintiff had an ability to prosecute her claim, the court explained.
