You are here

Collateral use in health care costs recovery action

In British Columbia v. Tekavec, 2012 BCSC 1348 the court held that documents and examination for discovery transcripts from a personal injury action were producible in a subsequent health care cost recovery action related to the same incident. It was the defendants in the personal injury claim who were resisting the relief the Crown sought from the implied undertaking, but the fact that the injury claimant (Mr. Jack) did not object to disclosure counted in favour of an order for disclosure: 
 
[I]t is my conclusion that the circumstances warrant an order overriding the protection of the implied undertaking. The basis for so deciding is that, while the applicant HMTQ was not a party to the original action, the principal issue in the present action is compellingly similar to the issue there: was Mr. Tekavec responsible for the injuries that were sustained by Mr. Jack? I note as well the following: Mr. Jack has apparently indicated that he has no objection to the materials being disclosed to the applicant. There would be no prejudice to Mr. Jack if the materials were to be disclosed. Finally, the same questions and topics that were canvassed with Mr. Tekavec in the examination for discovery at issue could be quite properly raised in his examination for discovery in the present action. In effect, disclosure of the materials represents a proper means of proceeding more efficiently.
(British Columbia v. Tekavec, 2012 BCSC 1348 at para. 29).
 
 
This book was written by Michael Dew, a Vancouver lawyer who practices civil litigation, including representing claimants in motor vehicle accident claims, persons who have been denied insurance coverage by insurance companies, and persons dealing with builders lien issues.