Jampolsky v. Shattler et al., 2015 BCCA 87

• Judge: Kirkpatrick, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 04, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 87;(2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA)

Jampolsky v. Shattler (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.010

Perry Jampolsky (appellant/plaintiff) v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (respondent/defendant)

(CA039015)

Marc Joseph Jampolsky and Perry Jampolsky (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Cindy Salina Shattler, Robert A. Smithson and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (respondents/defendants)

(CA039016)

Perry Jampolsky (appellant/plaintiff) v. Jaswinder Janjua and Manjit Parmar (respondents/defendants) and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (respondent/third party)

(CA039017)

Marc Joseph Jampolsky and Perry Jampolsky (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (respondent/defendant)

(CA039018; 2015 BCCA 87)

Indexed As: Jampolsky v. Shattler et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Kirkpatrick, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.

February 26, 2015.

Summary:

Jampolsky had been involved in four motor vehicle accidents: three in 1999 and one in 2007. He asserted that one or more of the accidents had caused a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) that had left him with significant personality changes as well as memory and cognitive deficits. Jampolsky asserted that his employment prospects had been impaired due to the accidents.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 494, awarded Jampolsky damages of $14,000. The court found that Jampolsky had failed to prove an MTBI. The damages award compensated him for soft tissue injuries. Jampolsky appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Damage Awards - Topic 102

Injury and death - Head injuries - Brain damage - See paragraphs 36 to 71.

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact - See paragraphs 41 to 67.

Practice - Topic 8802

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a trial judge - See paragraphs 68 to 71.

Practice - Topic 8803

Appeals - General principles - Whether trial judge must give reasons for rejecting evidence or for credibility findings - See paragraphs 36 to 40.

Torts - Topic 61

Negligence - Causation - Causal connection - See paragraphs 41 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 37].

Laporte v. Canadian Pacific Railway, [1924] S.C.R. 278, refd to. [para. 39].

Savinkoff v. Seggewiss (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 98; 126 W.A.C. 98; 25 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Baxter v. Brown (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 69; 143 W.A.C. 69; 28 B.C.L.R.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Slaney v. Van-Beek, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2015 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

McDonald v. Bearman, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2793 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Paciocco, David and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 16 [para. 38].

Counsel:

T.P. Harding, for the appellant;

A.M. Gunn, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on February 4, 2015, by Kirkpatrick, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On February 26, 2015, Kirkpatrick, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.