Waechter v MacLeod, 2024 BCSC 1360
MacLeod v Waechter, 2025 BCCRT 97
The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) can delay claims and significantly limit the recovery available to injured parties. In an exceptional result, Alexandra Severn and Michael Yawney, KC successfully removed a personal injury claim from the CRT, allowing their client’s case to proceed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia – a rare and hard-won success in BC litigation.
Alexandra and Mike represent Hannah Waechter in a personal injury claim arising from a serious motor vehicle collision in May 2020. The defendant, Fardowsa MacLeod, was criminally charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the center line and colliding head-on with Ms. Waechter’s vehicle.
A claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia approximately five months after the collision. Despite the criminal charge, the defendant denied liability for the collision and alleged that Ms. Waechter’s injuries fell within the statutory definition of “minor injury” under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and Minor Injury Regulation. On that basis, the defendant successfully applied for a stay of the Supreme Court proceedings in September 2023, pending a determination by the CRT.
Although defense counsel initially advised that an application would be filed with the CRT, no confirmation of any such filing was provided. Given the foregoing, by May 2024, with no apparent progress at the CRT, Alexandra and Mike brought an application to lift the stay. Following service of this application, in response, defense counsel advised that an application had been made to the CRT but later withdrawn – allegedly on advice from the CRT that it was improper for a defendant to bring such an application. Additionally, the defense, rather than seeking to maintain their minor injury determination application in the CRT by applying to reinstate the original application in accordance with CRT rules, filed a second entirely new application.
Nonetheless, Alexandra and Mike were successful in their application to lift the stay. Justice Ker agreed with their submissions, finding that the defense’s conduct was inconsistent with the Supreme Court Civil Rules and the CRT’s legislative mandate. The Court held that the stay had caused inordinate delay and noted that, in light of the defendant’s ongoing denial of liability despite a criminal conviction, maintaining the stay would be, at minimum, unfair, and verging on an abusive misuse of process.
The defense appealed Justice Ker’s decision and simultaneously attempted to proceed with the second CRT application. Before any determination on the substance of the injuries, the CRT convened a preliminary inquiry to consider whether the second application was procedurally valid. Alexandra and Mike argued successfully that it was not, pointing to violations of statutory timelines, procedural rules, and the improper circumvention of required steps. Ultimately, the CRT dismissed the defense’s second application for a minor injury determination.
The defense has since abandoned its appeal of Justice Ker’s order, and the matter now proceeds before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Read the 2025 Decision Here.
