The plaintiff sought compensation without revealing a prior settlement
The Supreme Court of British Columbia stayed a dog bite lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff improperly pursued compensation without disclosing a prior settlement, resulting in double recovery.
In Rae v Gadalla, 2024 BCSC 1802, the court set aside a previous damages award after the defendants successfully argued that the plaintiff had already settled part of his claim before trial.
The original trial revolved around an October 2018 incident in which the plaintiff was bitten by the defendants' dog while in an elevator at their shared condominium building. The court found the defendants liable and awarded the plaintiff $5,000 in non-pecuniary damages. However, the defendants later applied to set aside this ruling, arguing that the plaintiff had already received compensation from two other parties involved in the case.
Prior to the trial, the plaintiff settled his claims against the condominium’s strata and property manager, receiving $8,500 as part of the settlement. Despite this, the plaintiff did not disclose the settlement details or amend his claim against the defendants as required by the settlement terms. The defendants argued that this failure resulted in the plaintiff receiving compensation twice—once from the settling defendants and again from the court.
The court found that the plaintiff’s handling of the settlement and proceeding with the trial without adjusting his claim was improper. The plaintiff did not amend his pleadings to reflect the settlement nor disclose the amount received before the trial order was entered. This led the court to conclude that the plaintiff had already been fully compensated before trial, and the $5,000 awarded by the court should have been reduced to zero.
The Supreme Court also criticized the plaintiff’s actions in having the order entered and enforcing it before these issues were fully addressed. The plaintiff attempted to collect the damages by threatening the defendants with an examination in aid of execution, despite the fact that the defendants had already deposited the judgment amount in trust.
For these reasons, the court ruled in favour of the defendants, set aside the original judgment, and stayed the lawsuit as an abuse of process. The court ordered the plaintiff to return the $5,000 awarded in the original trial and pay $2,500 in special costs to the defendants.
