#301-2706 30th Avenue
Vernon, B.C. Canada V1T 2B6
Hours: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
Monday to Friday
Wheelchair Accessible
Telephone: 250-542-5353
Toll-Free: 1-800-243-5353
Fax: 250-542-7273
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of this application, in response, defense counsel advised that an application had been made to the CRT but later withdrawn – allegedly on advice from the CRT that it was improper for a defendant to bring such an application.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.
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.
$98,700 awarded for damages.
Acted for plaintiffs in wills variation claim.
Alexandra Severn acted as counsel for the defendant, Diverse Truck & Equipment Inc, in an action brought by the plaintiff, George Johnson, which was determined by way of summary trial. The court was tasked with determining who the true owner of a skidsteer was.
Through the Alberta court system, Diverse was awarded a judgment for unpaid accounts against Effin Trucking Ltd, a company that was owned by Wesley and Dorrie Johnson. Despite the judgment, Effin did not pay the amounts owed to Diverse, which resulted in Diverse electing to engage in collection procedures, utilizing the services of a bailiff to seize and auction Effin’s property to pay for the money owed. When the bailiff was seizing the skidsteer, Dorrie alleged that it no longer belonged to Effin, that Effin sold it to Wesley, Wesley then used it as collateral for a loan given to him by his father, George, which Wesley failed to pay, and, as a result, the skidsteer belonged to George.
Alexandra argued it was clear that the allegations regarding the transfers of ownership was a sham, confabulated in an effort to deprive Diverse from collecting money owed by Effin, and that George did not meet his burden of proof to support his claim. Madam Justice Donegan agreed with Alexandra’s arguments, finding that the skidsteer did not belong to George when it was seized; rather, it was still owned by Effin, and, therefore, properly seized by Diverse. Madam Justice Donegan further ordered George to pay costs to Diverse.