Aggett v. Vashist Date:, 2015 BCPC 458

Citation: Aggett v. Vashist Date: 20150220 2015 BCPC 458 File No: 14-48444 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: JEREMY ROY AGGETT CLAIMANT AND: ANSH VASHIST DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP B. WALLACE Counsel for the Claimant: J. Aggett Counsel for the Defendant: D. Klassen Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 28, 2015

Date of Judgment: February 20, 2015 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident. No independent eyewitnesses gave evidence. The issue is credibility. FACTS [ 2 ] On May 8, 2013, the Claimant was driving his car north on Ross St. in Vancouver just south of the intersection of East 63 rd Ave. He was with his husband, Richard Glendinning. His car was behind the pick-up truck being driven by the Defendant. The Defendant was alone. Both vehicles were travelling north, uphill. There are two versions of the accident. [ 3 ] The Claimant and Mr.

Glendinning both said at the hearing that as they approached E 63 rd Ave., the Defendant was stopped a short distance south of the intersection engaged in an animated conversation with the driver of a white van southbound on Ross St. Mr. Glendinning’s evidence is that he saw the Defendant gesticulating. This evidence is consistent with the Claimant’s statement of 9 May 2013 as included in his ICBC record for the accident. [ 4 ] The Claimant says in his trial statement that the Defendant’s “truck then ran back a little bit and stopped. Then the reversing lights went on.” [ 5 ] The Claimant and Mr.

Glendinning say that Mr. Glendinning then leaned over from the passenger seat and pressed the horn, but the Defendant’s truck continued in reverse, colliding with the Claimant’s car. [ 6 ] The parties then got out of their vehicles. The Claimant says Mr. Glendinning challenged the Defendant on not having stopped when he sounded the horn, and that the Defendant apologized, admitted liability, and offered to settle the matter privately. Mr. Glendinning says the same. [ 7 ] The Defendant said that the Claimant failed to stop and hit his truck.

His ICBC record for the accident filed as part of the Claimant’s trial statement includes the following note dated 23 May: “Ins (insured, the Defendant) slowed to turn right”.

This is consistent with the Defendant’s Trial Statement, but he said at the hearing that he stopped for pedestrians who he had not previously mentioned, and who he could not describe. [ 8 ] When asked at the hearing if he apologized after the accident, he did not directly deny it, but said, “Why would I?” He also testified that he could not have had a conversation with the driver of the white van because he couldn’t as he always drives with his window closed to keep the interior from getting dusty. [ 9 ] The Defendant’s evidence about the occupants of the white van is inconsistent.

An interview of May 13, 2013 is summarized in the Defendant’s ICBC record for the accident as follows: “…I asked ins about south bound van. Ins said that he knows the driver of south bound van – I asked for the driver of the south bound vans name and he advised he does not know. Ins advised that it someone he works with. Then said not he works with but has done jobs with in the past…” [ 10 ] The Defendant’s evidence at the hearing was vague. Essentially, he said he is a contractor and may have worked with the person or people in the van. [ 11 ] The Claimant reported the accident to ICBC on May 8, 2013.

He was advised by ICBC that the Defendant had not reported the accident and that ICBC would contact him. He followed up with ICBC on or about May 23, was told that the Defendant had reported the accident on May 13, and had denied liability. The Claimant was also told that he, the Claimant, was liable because he had been behind the Defendant and there were no independent witnesses. [ 12 ] The Claimant learned on or about May 25 that ICBC has a process called a “matchup” where one adjuster would look at the damage on both vehicles involved in an accident at the same time, to try to determine fault.

He asked for but was frustrated in trying to persuade ICBC to conduct a matchup. However, he finally succeeded and one was set for June 24. On June 23, ICBC advised him that the Defendant was unable to attend and it would set another date. On July 8, ICBC advised the Claimant that the Defendant’s truck had been repaired. The record shows that the Defendant took his truck to the body shop on June 27. [ 13 ] The Defendant did not seek a matchup and says that ICBC did not advise him of the matchup process. [ 14 ] ICBC ultimately, concluded that the Claimant was 50% liable.

The Claimant asks me to find that he was not at fault for the accident and seeks $1,131.93 for the 50% for which ICBC has determined he is liable plus $120 in claim-related fees. ANALYSIS [ 15 ] The Claimant’s Trial Statement and the testimony of the Claimant and Mr. Glendinning are all consistent. Although his efforts were frustrated by ICBC’s action, the Claimant also pursued having a matchup, which may have provided objective evidence of fault. [ 16 ] The Defendant’s evidence is inconsistent in his knowledge of and relation to the occupants of the white van.

Initially he admitted knowing them, then couldn’t name them, and at the hearing did not admit to knowing them. His evidence became more and more vague. The reason for that may be that identifying an occupant of the van would have identified a witness who would not have supported the Defendant’s version of what happened.

[ 17 ] Initially the Defendant said he slowed to turn and then that he stopped to avoid pedestrians, the latter being a vague allegation. [ 18 ] I prefer the evidence of the Claimant to that of the Defendant, and find that the accident was the fault of the Defendant, not that of the Claimant. DECISION [ 19 ] The Claim is allowed in the amount of $1,131.93 plus costs of $120 and interest from June 1, 2013 to today, in the amount of $19.54, for a total of $1,271.47. ____________________ Brian J. Wallace, Q.C. Adjudicator