BC Court of Appeal orders new hit-and-run trial

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has ordered a new trial in a hit-and-run case on the basis the reasons for judgement given by the B.C. Supreme Court were not adequate to allow appellate review.
In Gibson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Peter Gibson was riding his motorcycle late at night in May 2002. He was struck from behind and suffered various injuries.
Police attending the scene of the accident and the ICBC identified the incident as a hit-and-run.
Gibson launched an action against ICBC since, in a hit-and-run case in B.C., if the driver is unknown, the plaintiff can launch an action against the insurer.
Supreme Court of British Columbia Justice S.R. Romilly presided over the initial trial. The court considered the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries arising out of the accident and the amount of his damages.
Romilly awarded Gibson Cdn$32,000 for lost wages, non-pecuniary damages of Cdn$80,000, net wage loss of Cdn$24,000, and special damages of Cdn$1,259.
Gibson sought a new trial. He argued the trial judge had failed to:
award him an appropriate amount;
attribute a shoulder injury to the accident (resulting in a lesser award); and
award future cost of care and loss of earning capacity.
Before the order formalizing Romilly’s judgement was entered into the Supreme Court, ICBC received an anonymous tip to the effect that the accident had been falsely reported as a hit-and-run.
The “tipster” claimed she had been following Gibson in her car to a residence after an evening out at a pub together. She then claims to have hit him.
The tipster alleged he waved her on and told her to leave the crash scene.
The trial judge dismissed ICBC’s application to re-open the trial and withdraw its initial admissions in light of the new evidence. He found the evidence was unreliable, the panel observed.
The dismissal prompted ICBC to apply for leave to appeal.
“The central issue on this appeal is the adequacy of the trial judge’s reasons,” the Court of Appeal wrote. “It is fair to say that they are not reasons, they are rather, bald conclusions on issues of fact before the trial court.”
While the trial judge’s conclusions do touch upon each of the principal issues of fact before the court, “they offer nothing of the reasoning process in which the trial judge engaged in arriving at them.”
Because of this, the Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial, rendering moot ICBC’s appeal from the trial judge’s order refusing to reopen the trial.