BC Supreme Court Refuses to Exclude Disbursements in Motor Vehicle Accident Case

Why It Matters

The ruling clarifies that financially stable plaintiffs cannot rely on hardship arguments to cut expert costs, reinforcing the strict application of BC’s Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation. This sets a precedent that may limit cost‑saving tactics in personal‑injury lawsuits.

Key Takeaways

• Court denied exclusion of expert disbursements, citing plaintiff's financial capacity.
• Plaintiff failed to prove undue hardship despite owning $300k home and mortgage.
• Lack of completed physiotherapy and imaging undermined need for additional experts.
• Ruling emphasizes high‑wage earners face fewer cost‑reduction protections.
• Decision reinforces BC's Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation enforcement.

Pulse Analysis

The British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Herzig v. Golowko underscores the province’s firm stance on expert‑witness costs under the Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation (DEER). By refusing to exclude the expenses of a vocational analyst, occupational therapist, actuary and orthopedic surgeon, the court signaled that parties must substantiate genuine financial distress before receiving relief. The plaintiff’s inability to show that covering these disbursements would cause undue hardship—despite owning a home purchased for roughly $296,000 USD and carrying a mortgage—proved decisive. This outcome reflects a broader judicial trend toward ensuring that litigation expenses are borne by those who can afford them, especially when the plaintiff’s earning potential remains strong.

Financial hardship assessments in personal‑injury cases now require concrete evidence of sacrifice, not merely assertions of cost. The court highlighted the plaintiff’s relatively high hourly income, projected earnings growth, and existing assets, concluding that the burden of expert fees was manageable. Moreover, the plaintiff’s failure to follow medical recommendations—such as completing physiotherapy and obtaining a magnetic resonance angiogram—created evidentiary gaps that weakened his claim for additional expert input. By linking financial capacity with procedural diligence, the ruling establishes a two‑pronged test: plaintiffs must both demonstrate genuine hardship and show that further expert testimony is essential to their case.

For litigants and law firms, the decision serves as a cautionary tale. It emphasizes the importance of early case management, thorough documentation of expenses, and compliance with medical protocols to avoid unnecessary expert costs. As courts continue to enforce DEER provisions, parties may need to reassess budgeting for expert witnesses and explore alternative dispute‑resolution mechanisms. Ultimately, the ruling could lead to more streamlined personal‑injury proceedings, with reduced reliance on costly expert testimony unless absolutely warranted, thereby influencing how future claims are structured and funded.