5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Responding to a Small Claim (20:VI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Responding to a Small Claim (20:VI) (view source)
Revision as of 20:49, 8 September 2023
, 20:49, 8 September 2023added paragraph explaining admissions of fact under 2. Apologising
(added paragraph explaining admissions of fact under 2. Apologising) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:'''Note''': It is important to contact the insurer as soon as possible and to not make any admissions that might jeopardize a defence. Failing to promptly notify the insurer, admitting liability, or taking steps in the claim may permit the insurer to deny coverage. | :'''Note''': It is important to contact the insurer as soon as possible and to not make any admissions that might jeopardize a defence. Failing to promptly notify the insurer, admitting liability, or taking steps in the claim may permit the insurer to deny coverage. | ||
=== 2. | === 2. Apologising === | ||
Many lawsuits arise or continue because a wrongdoer has not apologized to the party who was wronged. In BC, a person may apologize for a wrongful act or failure to act without the apology becoming an admission of liability (''Apology Act'', SBC 2006, c 19, 2(1) and (2)). A sincere apology can often avert litigation or form an important foundation for a settlement. | Many lawsuits arise or continue because a wrongdoer has not apologized to the party who was wronged. In BC, a person may apologize for a wrongful act or failure to act without the apology becoming an admission of liability (''Apology Act'', SBC 2006, c 19, 2(1) and (2)). A sincere apology can often avert litigation or form an important foundation for a settlement. Under the act, such an apology may include words that admit or imply an admission of fault. | ||
'''Admissions of fact''': however, at common law, the courts and CRT have drawn a distinction between apologies covered by the the ''Apology Act'', (admissions of fault or liability) and those that include admissions of fact. The courts have found that factual admissions (“''I am sorry, I was looking at my phone while driving''”) can be considered by decision makers. Explanatory statements that accompany apologies such as “ ''I was in a hurry''” or “''I was angry''” go beyond admissions of fault excluded by the ''Apology Act'' and may be accepted into evidence (''Schnipper v. Nadeau'', 2022 BCCRT 173) | |||
=== 3. Option to Pay all or Part === | === 3. Option to Pay all or Part === | ||
