Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Do You Have a Small Claim? (20:III)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 47: Line 47:
=== 2. Special Damages ===
=== 2. Special Damages ===


Special damages are generally quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses that must be specifically claimed and strictly proven (''SCR'', s 20(5)). For example, if a person has been put to expense and has receipts showing the amounts spent, these expenses would be classified as special damages. In a personal injury action, this could be medical bills, or in an action involving faulty equipment, repair bills could be classified as special damages. Each and every expense must be strictly proved with documents or other satisfactory evidence. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc581/2013bcsc581.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdUmVkbCB2LiBTZWxsaW4sIDIwMTMgQkNTQyA1ODEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 ''Redl v. Sellin'', 2013 BCSC 581], the Court sets out the test with respect to a claimant’s claim for special damages.  Generally speaking, claims for special damages are subject only to the standard of reasonableness.  As with claims for the cost of future care (see '[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc982/2011bcsc982.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeSnVyYXNraSB2LiBCZWVrLCAyMDExIEJDU0MgOTgyAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 'Juraski v. Beek'', 2011 BCSC 982; ''Milina v. Bartsch'' (1985), 49 BCLR (2d) 33 (BCSC))], when a claimed expense has been incurred in relation to treatment, evidence of medical justification for the expense is a factor in determining reasonableness.
Special damages are generally quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses that must be specifically claimed and strictly proven (''SCR'', s 20(5)). For example, if a person has been put to expense and has receipts showing the amounts spent, these expenses would be classified as special damages. In a personal injury action, this could be medical bills, or in an action involving faulty equipment, repair bills could be classified as special damages. Each and every expense must be strictly proved with documents or other satisfactory evidence. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc581/2013bcsc581.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdUmVkbCB2LiBTZWxsaW4sIDIwMTMgQkNTQyA1ODEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 ''Redl v. Sellin'', 2013 BCSC 581], the Court sets out the test with respect to a claimant’s claim for special damages.  Generally speaking, claims for special damages are subject only to the standard of reasonableness.  As with claims for the cost of future care (see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc982/2011bcsc982.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeSnVyYXNraSB2LiBCZWVrLCAyMDExIEJDU0MgOTgyAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 ''Juraski v. Beek'', 2011 BCSC 982]; ''Milina v. Bartsch'' (1985), 49 BCLR (2d) 33 (BCSC))], when a claimed expense has been incurred in relation to treatment, evidence of medical justification for the expense is a factor in determining reasonableness.


=== 3. Nominal Damages ===
=== 3. Nominal Damages ===
5,109

edits