Sharma v. Day,
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Judge | Honourable Madam Justice Horsman |
| Citation | 2020 BCSC 1365 |
| Docket Number | M1710151 |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Date | 16 September 2020 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
9 practice notes
-
Roy-Noel v Buckle
...future care costs for Botox treatments, where the efficacy of such treatments was unproven and hypothetical: see e.g., Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at para. 163; Wright v. Dillon, 2009 BCSC 176 at para. 44; Minenko v. Minenko, 2014 BCSC 628 at paras. 110–111; Andreas v. Vu, 2020 BCSC 1144 ......
-
Hawes v. Nyhus
...so long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation: Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at para. 122; Goguen v. Di Maddalena, 2018 BCSC 106. A real and substantial possibility is a lower standard of proof that a balance of prob......
-
Alragheb v. Francis
...928 at paras. 163–168; Kingston v. Mann, 2020 BCSC 1889 at paras. 231–232; Chevez‑Babcock v. Peerens, 2020 BCSC 863; and Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at paras. [56] In my view, these cases do not stand as authority for the proposition for which they are cited. In none of the cases is the N......
-
Chawla v Gebert
...that the analysis of Justice Horsman (as she then was) of assistance in the discussion of the concept of indivisibility in Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365. Our Court of Appeal in Alragheb v. Francis, 2021 BCCA 457 at para. 64 adopted a passage of Sharma regarding indivisibility as follows: [9......
Get Started for Free
11 cases
-
2024 BCSC 752,
...future care costs for Botox treatments, where the efficacy of such treatments was unproven and hypothetical: see e.g., Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at para. 163; Wright v. Dillon, 2009 BCSC 176 at para. 44; Minenko v. Minenko, 2014 BCSC 628 at paras. 110–111; Andreas v. Vu, 2020 BCSC 1144 ......
-
Roy-Noel v Buckle,
...future care costs for Botox treatments, where the efficacy of such treatments was unproven and hypothetical: see e.g., Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at para. 163; Wright v. Dillon, 2009 BCSC 176 at para. 44; Minenko v. Minenko, 2014 BCSC 628 at paras. 110–111; Andreas v. Vu, 2020 BCSC 1144 ......
-
Hawes v. Nyhus,
...so long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation: Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at para. 122; Goguen v. Di Maddalena, 2018 BCSC 106. A real and substantial possibility is a lower standard of proof that a balance of prob......
-
Alragheb v. Francis,
...928 at paras. 163–168; Kingston v. Mann, 2020 BCSC 1889 at paras. 231–232; Chevez‑Babcock v. Peerens, 2020 BCSC 863; and Sharma v. Day, 2020 BCSC 1365 at paras. [56] In my view, these cases do not stand as authority for the proposition for which they are cited. In none of the cases is the N......
Get Started for Free