How have the courts in B.C. considered the principle against permitting an accident victim to have double recovery?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Gasior v. Bayes, 2010 BCCA 285 (CanLII):
The majority in Gurniak pointed out that this approach was consistent with the principle against permitting an accident victim to have double recovery. Reference was also made by the defendants to a decision of Neilson J. (as she then was) in Sovani v. Jin, 2005 BCSC 1285, 47 B.C.L.R (4th) 97, where she said:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In what circumstances will the Supreme Court in BCSC 871 interpret the principles of the Court of Appeal in the context of the Canadian Court of Justice's decision on the doctrine of common law? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the Court in BC considered a recovery action for damages under Rule 18A? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court consider 4 costs considerations? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the principle against double recovery in tort law? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a patient who has not mentioned a symptom in a clinical note for over a year or so be considered an accident victim? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the principles used by the Court of Appeal in making an order to refer the issue to the Superior Court of Justice? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a motor vehicle accident is an accident or an accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors are considered by the courts in determining non-pecunciary damages in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts in BC considered the principles of unjust enrichment and resulting trust in real property? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
