Innes v. Bui, 2010 BCCA 322
July 4, 2011- This personal injury case has been considered by one case since being handed down and is considered good law up to the date of thsi article. The ICBC claimant appealed an order that dismissed her personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. The basis of the order was a finding that the issue of fault for the collision was res judicata (already been decided by another court of competent jurisdiction).
Ms. Bui went to Small Claims Court over her loss of drivers discount after ICBC assessed her as 100% at fault. Her Claim was dismissed. Ms. Innes then sued Ms. Bui in Supreme Court for her personal injuries from the accident. The Judge dismissed her claim as well on the basis that it had already been decided by the Small Claim Court.
The Court of Appeal clearly disagreed with it all finding that the Small Claims Court did not actually determine the issue of fault and therefore the issue of fault had yet to be decided. The appeal was allowed and Ms. Innes was entitled to continue her claim.
As the Court of Appeal stated, The pre-conditions to making out issue estoppel are stated in Angle v. Minister of National Revenue,  2 S.C.R. 248 at 254:
Lord Guest in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2), at p. 935, defined the requirements of issue estoppel as:
… (1) that the same question has been decided; (2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and, (3) that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies …..Posted By personal injury lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness
Issue: Should a personal injury claimant be entitled to another “kick at the can” in these circumstances?