top of page


De Reyes v. Fabiszewski,

2023 BCSC 996

Ms. De Reyes was a produce line worker who was injured in a motor vehicle collision in 2016. Ms. De Reyes remained working but at reduced hours on account of chronic pain and corresponding psychological injuries. At trial she was awarded $759,595, of which $120,000 was for pain and suffering and $435,000 was to account for her impaired capacity to earn income in the future.

Bowe v. Bowe,

2022 BCCA 35

The plaintiff in this case was a 15 year old young man who suffered catastrophic injuries as a passenger in a single vehicle collision. After the jury quantified the plaintiff’s damages at over $10,000,000 before a 40% reduction for contributory negligence, the trial judge found that the defendant owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for the actions of the defendant driver.
This finding was overturned on appeal and contains a detailed analysis of s.81(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as a discussion on vicarious liability generally in motor vehicle collision cases. The plaintiff sought eave to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada but leave was not granted.

See Case:

C.M.G. v. R.M.G.,

2021 BCSC 1661

The plaintiff was a young mother and dental hygienist who suffered soft tissue and psychiatric injuries as a result of two motor vehicle collisions that were not her fault. Her injuries prevented her from working in her chosen career as a dental hygienist in the future, despite her best efforts to continue trying to do this work after she was injured. The plaintiff was awarded $112,000 for pain and suffering damages, $160,413 for past loss of earning capacity, $685,818 for loss of future earning capacity, $28,000 for cost of future care and treatments and $25,000 for her out of pocket expenses.

Wong v. Au,

2021 BCSC 58

Mr. Wong was a young restaurant manager and chef when he was hit by a car as a pedestrian in a crosswalk by no fault of his own. He suffered injuries to his right ankle and wrist, hip and leg, left shoulder, and neck as well as a sacral hemangioma being rendered symptomatic as a result of being hit. In addition, Mr. Wong was found to have suffered an altered pain response, headaches, a sleep disorder, depression, and anxiety as a result of being hit by the car. In finding that the plaintiff’s injuries had and likely would continue to impact his ability to work and earn a living in the future, the court assessed the damages at $472,849.79 which included $74,000 for the plaintiff’s future care and treatments.

Luck v. Shack,

2019 BCSC 1172

Ms. Luck, who was 31 years old when she was rear-ended by a car suffering soft tissue injuries as a result, was a hard-working woman who suffered myofascial pain syndrome as a result of the accident, that unfortunately had not resolved and was not expected to improve by the time of trial. While finding that Ms. Luck had some pre-existing soft tissue issues that were treated before the accident, the court also found that the accident significantly aggravated this condition and awarded Ms. Luck $381,571 in damages including $200,000 for loss of future earning capacity, $85,000 for cost of future care and $3,500 in trust for the additional care that the plaintiff’s mother had to provide to her after she had her son, as she was unable to fully take care of her new child.

Senger v. Graham, 

2018 BCSC 257

Simon represented a 23 year old woman who was in her first year of a dental hygiene program when she was hit by a vehicle that ran a stop sign in Nanaimo. The court awarded Ms. Senger damages of $993,813,89 of which $700,000 was awarded for her loss of career as a dental hygienist.  Of particular note in this case, the defendant’s lawyers submitted that because the plaintiff had photographs of herself doing activities on her social medial trying activities after the accident, that it meant she was not as injured as she said she was.  The court disagreed stating:
[18]        While defendant’s counsel tried to discredit her evidence by introducing photos that have been posted on the internet of Ms. Senger engaging in physical activities, I do not find that the fact that she has tried doing physical activities or travelled detracts from her evidence in the least. In fact, it makes her evidence more compelling.
[19]        Prior to the accident the plaintiff was an active young woman. She has always participated in sports. She is trying to keep active and in shape. As the majority of the activities she enjoyed prior to the accident now cause her pain she is trying others. She is to be commended for that.
[20]        Plaintiffs cannot be expected to cease living once they commence a lawsuit.

Downey v. O'Connor, 

2017 BCSC 1459

Nick acted for Ms. Downey, an 18 year-old university student at the time of her accident in 2012. Her case was complicated by an accident two months prior to the accident in question in the case.

Helgason v. Rondeau, 

2022 BCSC 1330

Ms. Helgason was a young lawyer who was injured in a 2018 motor vehicle collision. At the time of the collision she was a law student. Ms. Helgason was working full-time following the collision but eventually had to reduce her hours due to ongoing chronic neck pain and headaches. At trial her losses were quantified by the judge at over $3.2M, of which $160,000 was for pain and suffering and $3M was for future income losses as a result of her symptoms and their impact on her work.

Anderson v. Steffen, 

2021 BCSC 2248

Mr. Anderson was a 34 year old crane operator who was injured in a 2017 motor vehicle collision. Mr. Anderson suffered chronic back pain flowing from soft tissue injury primarily to his lower back region. While he tried to work following the collision, he reduced his hours at times until he was ultimately unable to continue working in his previous line of work as a crane operator. At trial Mr. Anderson was awarded over $1.6M, of which $130,000 was for pain and suffering and $1.2M was for his future loss of income.

Goss v. Sull, 

2021 BCSC 1853

Ms. Goss was a 46 year-old paramedic who was injured when her vehicle was stuck by another vehicle in a 2016 collision. Ms. Goss continued to work following the collision but was restricting from working more hours as a result of chronic pain in her neck and back regions along with thoracic outlet syndrome. The Trial Judge awarded Ms. Goss $892,953, of which $110,000 was awarded for her ongoing pain and suffering and $650,000 represented damages for loss of future earning capacity.

Leung v. Draper,

2020 BCSC 2019

Ms. Leung, a 37 year old single mother of two, who worked full-time at Worksafe BC, was injured in a motor vehicle accident that was not her fault. She was healthy, active, fit and happy before the accident. She was found to have suffered significant soft tissue injuries to her neck, back and shoulder as a result of the accident as well as headaches and somatic symptom disorder (SSD) that had not resolved at the time of the trial (over 3.5 years later), and were unlikely to resolve in the future. The court awarded damages of $253,908 which included $105,000 for loss of future earning capacity and $33,962 for the cost of Ms. Leung’s future care and treatments.

Wong v. Draaistra, 

2019 BCSC 908 

Collins Peterson LLP represented a 46-year-old woman who was injured in two motor vehicle collisions which occurred approximately one year apart. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a somatic symptom disorder (a chronic pain disorder) and major depression as a result of her chronic neck and back pain resulting from the two motor vehicle collisions.

Jamal v. Kemery-Higgins, 

2017 BCSC 213

Simon represented a 36 year old registered massage therapist and mother of two who was rear-ended by a car while stopped in traffic in Vancouver.

Jury Trials

L.S. v. J.S., 
New Westminster M134285 (B.C.S.C.) (Jury Trial)

In a trial by jury, Simon represented a young man who was pursuing an education to become an engineer, when he was struck by a speeding pick-up truck that lost control in Kelowna, BC.

Other Results

Not all cases go to trial. Each case varies. Most often fair compensation occurs outside of court through skilled representation and negotiation of your case.


At Collins Peterson LLP the goal remains recovering fully what is yours. It’s about ensuring you achieve fair compensation and full recovery: emotionally, physically and financially.


At times during or after your case is resolved issues may arise that may impact on your ultimate recovery of fair compensation. For example, the insurance company wants to send you to a doctor of their choice without a proper basis or decides not to pay certain court costs after you’ve been successful in resolving your case and are entitled to such expenses.


Examples of such cases and Collins Peterson’s approach to securing and protecting your full recovery and right to fair compensation include:

Disclaimer: No two cases are the same. The outcome of each case will vary from case to case and depends on the unique facts and circumstance of each case. Collins Peterson LLP referencing successful judgments is not a guarantee or suggestive of future results or legal outcomes.

bottom of page