Nicolls v. B.C. Cancer Agency, (1999) 15 B.C.T.C. 44 (SC)

• Judge: Harvey, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 15 B.C.T.C. 44 (SC)

Nicolls v. B.C. Cancer Agency (1999), 15 B.C.T.C. 44 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JL.057

Stephanie Nicolls (plaintiff) v. B.C. Cancer Agency (defendant)

(C972702)

Indexed As: Nicolls v. B.C. Cancer Agency

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Harvey, J.

June 22 and September 8, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant as a result of the misreading of three Pap smears by three technicians employed by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the misreading of the Pap smears resulted in a late diagnosis of cervical cancer. As a result the plaintiff had to undergo extensive and continuing treat­ment, including radiotherapy.

The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's action and assessed damages. In subsequent reasons, the court determined costs and interest (see paragraphs 126 to 171).

Damage Awards - Topic 64

Injury and death - Body injuries - Genitals or reproductive system - See paragraphs 42 to 53.

Damage Awards - Topic 497.2

Injury and death - General damage awards - Loss of insurability - See paragraphs 82 to 89.

Damage Awards - Topic 634

Torts - Injury to the person - Medical or dental malpractice - See paragraphs 42 to 53.

Damages - Topic 1288

Losses by third parties - Recoverable losses - General and special damages for personal care of injured person - See para­graphs 90 to 101.

Damages - Topic 1527

General damages - Elements of - Loss of opportunity - To form interdependent relationship - See paragraphs 63 to 72.

Damages - Topic 1537.1

General damages - Elements of - Loss of insurability - See paragraphs 82 to 89.

Damages - Topic 1538

General damages - Elements of - Loss of spousal economic contribution - See para­graphs 63 to 72.

Medicine - Topic 4324

Liability of practitioners - Bars to actions - Limitation periods - See paragraphs 9 to 20.

Practice - Topic 7030

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Where success or fault divided - See paragraphs 126 to 165.

Cases Noticed:

Wittman v. Emmott (1991), 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Hughes v. Cooper Estate, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 787; 36 C.C.L.T.(2d) 42 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629; 39 N.R. 361; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 433; 129 D.L.R.(3d) 263; 34 B.C.L.R. 273; 19 C.C.L.T. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Muir v. Alberta (1996), 179 A.R. 321; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 695 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 44].

Reekie v. Messervey et al. (1989), 59 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Souto v. Anderson, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1377 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Lang v. Rabel, [1998] B.C.A.C. Uned. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Dingee v. Williams (1994), B.C.W.L.D. 1635, refd to. [para. 88].

Brennan v. Singh et al. (1999), 6 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 99].

Huff v. Price (1990), 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 309 (S.C.), affd. (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 62; 28 W.A.C. 62; 73 B.C.L.R.(2d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Rieta v. North American Air Travel In­surance Agents Ltd. (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 239; 171 W.A.C. 239; 35 C.C.E.L.(2d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Gotaverken Energy Systems Ltd. v. Cariboo Pulp & Paper Co. (1995), 9 B.C.L.R.(3d) 340 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 153].

Gillis v. Kralj, [1992] B.C.J. No. 2464 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 170].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, sect. 8 [para. 11].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, Appendix B, sect. 7 [para. 132].

Counsel:

M.P. Ragona, Q.C., and B. Devlin, for the plaintiff;

M.M. Skorah and A. Finch, for the de­fendant.

This action was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on May 17 to 21, 25 to 28 and 31, June 1, 3 and 4 and August 20 and 27, 1999, by Har­vey, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 22 and September 8, 1999.