Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Media reports indicate we may experience our first hurricane of the season this weekend. It doesn’t look like hurricane Irene is going to be anywhere near as powerful as hurricane Juan. Nevertheless, hurricanes are powerful and dangerous events that can cause significant damage and injury.

Therefore I thought it would be helpful to post a couple of tips to help folks prepare.

Prepare Your Safety Kit

Put together a waterproof plastic bin that you can keep in storage with your “Emergency Safety kit”. Consider including the following items:

• A first-aid kit and prescription medication;
• Canned food for four days (and a can opener);
• Three gallons of water per person;
• Ponchos;
• A “hand crank” flashlight and radio (that don’t require batteries);
• Disposable plates, cups, utensils;
• Infant care items (ie. disposable diapers, baby wipes, baby food/formula);
• Matches and a couple of cans of Sterno

Prepare Your Property

• Clear all patio furniture from decks;
• Secure your BBQ or any other loose objects around your property;
• Bring in flags, patio umbrellas or awnings;
• Don’t park your car under a tree;
• Remove lawn ornaments or decorative wreathes.

General Preparedness

• Fill your car’s gas tank and buy nonperishable food supplies;
• During the storm stay inside and stay away from windows;
• Stay away from coastal areas to avoid flood waters or storm surges.

Have a safe weekend everyone!

According to a recent report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information an average of 45 Canadians are hospitalized every day in the summer as a result of injuries from wheel and water sports.

“Summer is a great time to be active and enjoy the outdoors, but it is also a peak period for motor vehicle injuries and trauma related to wheel and water sports,” said Greg Webster, director of Primary Health Care Information at CIHI.

CIHI has been collecting data for the last 10 years. Their investigation show that cycling injuries account for half of all sport and recreation related hospital admissions.

Thousands of Cycling Injuries Every Year

In 2009-2010 more than 4000 Canadians were hospitalized as a result of cycling injuries with almost half of those injuries occurring in the months of June, July and August.

Good News

The good news is that while the number of cycling injuries that resulted in hospitalization has remained stable over the last 10 years the number of head injuries has decreased significantly (from more than 900 to 665) for the same period.

Nova Scotia Among Fewest Injuries

When the data is broken down by province hospitalization results were highest in the west (British Columbia and Alberta) and lowest in Ontario and Nova Scotia. No doubt that has to do with Nova Scotia’s early adoption (in 1997) of mandatory helmet legislation. Reseach published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggested that the rate of cycling head injuries in Nova Scotia dropped by more than 50% after the introduction of the mandatory helmet law.

Public Education Still Needed

While the results are encouraging, Canadians still have a long way to go. The other night I was walking though Hemlock Ravine Park when a family (two adults and three children) rode by me on mountain bikes. All three of the children had helmets on but neither one of the adults did.

Another example of the old saying: “Do as I say, not as I do”. Perhaps mom and dad would be more likely to wear their helmets if they read the CIHI report that found that 78% of cyclists who were hospitalized with a head injury were not wearing their helmet when their injury occurred.

Have a safe day and enjoy what’s left of our summer.

The New York Times recently reported that 75 former professional football players from the NFL have filed a claim against the National Football League claiming the league was aware that concussions could cause long term brain injury and that the league failed to warn players and properly treat their injuries.

Recently there have been a number of stories in the media surrounding the dangers of concussion and minor traumatic brain injury. Mostly spurred by injuries to professional athletes. See for example:

Hockey Players Losing More Time Due To Concussions

Brain Injury Claims: Female athletes more susceptible to brain injury

25% of Junior Hockey Players Suffer Brain Injuries: Ontario Medical Study

Lawsuit First to Allege Conspriracy?

However, so far as I am aware, this is the first lawsuit to allege that any professional sport organization was aware of the long term dangers of concussions and concealed that information from athletes.

Recent Changes

There is no doubt that part of the NFL’s defense will be the recent efforts it has made to increase awareness of the dangers of concussions. However, the medical profession has known for decades that concussion can have serious long term consequences.

The long term consequences of concussion can be seen in the recent report that Sydney Crosby (who suffered a concussion last season) is still not certain if he will be able to return to play when the season opens this year.

Even more tragically, is the example of former Chicago Bears player David Duerson who committed suicide. An autopsy showed that he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) a medical condition brought on by repeated blows to the head. The condition is better known to the public as boxer’s dementia.

While there is no way to know what the outcome of the NFL brain litigation will be, I hope that it will at least have the effect of raising public awareness about the dangers of sports related concussions.

Brain Injury Litigation Challenging

Brain injuries can be difficult to detect and difficult to prove in personal injury claims. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote Brain Matter: The Survivor’s Guide to Brain Injury Claims.

I wrote the book to help educate the public about the challenges faced by survivors of traumatic brain injury. The book is for sale on Amazon.com and I am donating all of the proceeds of sales from Amazon to the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia.

However, I will send a copy of the book, at no charge, to anyone who contacts me through this blog, just put "Brain Matter" in the subject line and send me your mailing address.

Diagnosing Traumatic Brain Injury

There are a number of diagnostic tests that doctors use to test for brain injury. The problem is that most of the tests (X-Ray, CT Scan, MRI) are not sensitive enough to detect the subtle changes cause by minor traumatic brain injury.

Several years ago I had a case where I was asked to provide a second opinion to someone who had been in a car accident. She had received an offer of compensation based on the fact that she hyad broken some bones in the accident.

But after interviewing her, and some of her family members, I was concerned that she was showing signs of an undiagnosed brain injury. After we arranged for further testing she was diagnosed as having suffered a minor traumatic brain injury (MTBI).

"How Do I Know if I Have a Minor Traumatic Brain Injury?"

So how do you know if you or a loved one has suffered a minor traumatic brain injury?

Here is a simple checklist of the signs or symptoms of minor traumatic brain injury. It's important to rememeber that the presence of some or all of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that you have a brain injury.

However, if you have 5 or more of these symptoms, and they appeared after you suffered a blow to the head, then you should tell your doctor to see if he or she thinks further investigation is necessary.

CHECKLIST OF MINOR BRAIN INJURY SYMPTOMS

HEADACHES

Are you experiencing more headaches after the injury or accident?

Do you have pain in your temples or forehead?

Are you experiencing stabbing pains in your head lasting more than a few seconds?

MEMORY

Does your memory seem worse since the accident?

Have family members or friends said you seem forgetful?

Do you have difficulty remembering something you just read?

WORD FINDING

Do you have the feeling that the word you are looking for is "on the tip of your tongue" but you just can't say it?

FATIGUE

Do you get (mentally or physically) tired more easily?

Does your fatigue get worse when you have to concentrate on something?

EMOTIONAL CHANGES

Do you get angry or irrtiated easily?

Since the injury, do you cry or become depressed easily?

SLEEP DISTURBANCE

Do you wake up frequently throughout the night?

Do you wake up very early and cannot go back to sleep?

ENVIRONMENT

Are you easily overwhelmed in noisy places?

IMPULSE CONTROL

Do you find yourself impulsive decisions (saying things "without thinking" or impulse buying?)

CONCENTRATION

Do you have difficulty concentrating or staying focused?

DISTRACTION

Do you find that you are easily distracted?

When you are reading do you frequently lose your place?

ORGANIZATION

Do you have difficulty organizing complicated tasks?

Do you find you are "missing steps" in recipes, projects, instructions or "to-do" lists?

Was this helpful?

If so send me an e-mail or leave me a comment. Let me know what other information you would like to see on this blog.

MORE INFORMATION

What is a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury?

What Are The Symptoms of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury?

8 Myths of Traumatic Brain Injury

Understanding How the Brain Works

Continue reading " Nova Scotia Brain Injury Claims: Signs of Minor Traumatic Brain Injury " »

Baby Dragged By Car

The Ottawa Citizen reported that a 6 month old boy suffered head injuries after being dragged 12 meters by the family car when it rolled backwards down their driveway after being knocked into gear by his 3 year old sister.

The infant's 14 year old sister was helping her mom get the family ready for a trip. The baby had been buckled into a car seat and the car seat was placed on the driveway beside the family car. The family’s 3 year old daughter was playing in the front seat of the car and managed to knock the car into gear. The car started rolling backwards and dragged the infant in his car seat for almost 12 meters. Media reports list the baby as being in stable but serious condition.

Unattended Children in Cars = Danger

This incident highlights all the many dangers that KidsandCars.org Canada have been trying to prevent. Leaving children unattended in a vehicle, even for a short period of time, can have unintended, and often tragic consequences.

And that’s why I have agreed to chair KidsandCars.org Canada! To help educate the public about the dangers automobiles can pose to our children and to lobby for better safety features in automotive vehicles.

Could it Happen to You?

Do you know if your car has the safety features that will prevent it from shifting into gear by mistake?

Here's how you can check to see if your vehicle can be shifted into gear accidentally. You want to make sure your vehicle has a “brake transmission shift interlock” (BTSI) that works in all shift positions.

6 Simple Steps:

1. Make sure your vehicle is parked on a flat surface;

2. Get in your car and put the emergency brake on;

3. Make sure no one is in front of or behind your vehicle;

4. Put the keys in the ignition in the off position;

5. Turn the key one click forward ;

6. Try to shift your vehicle into gear without putting your foot on the brake.

What Happened?

If your vehicle shifts into gear, then you do not have brake transmission shift interlock in that position. You should be aware that your vehicle can roll if it is accidently shifted into gear.

Try the same test in all key positions. If your vehicle shifts into gear without putting your foot on the brake, then your vehicle does not have BTSI at all!

Most vehicles manufactured today have BTSI in some positions but not all. The old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Simply knowing that your vehicle can accidently roll should make you more aware of the potential dangers to you and your children.

More Information

Formal Agreement Reached on Brake Transmission System Interlock

Automatic transmission cars can kill your child

A pediatric surgeon at the IWK Health Center, Dr. Natalie Yanchar recently completed a study comparing ATV related hospitalizations in the province for three years before Nova Scotia introduced restrictions on children driving ATVs and the three years since the legislation was put into place.

According to Dr. Yanchar’s study, ATV related hospitalizations dropped 38% since the new legislation was put in place and severe ATV related injuries dropped 75%.

In 2005 Nova Scotia enacted legislation requiring mandatory safety training for children. The legislation also prohibits children under the age of 14 from riding ATVs unless they are on closed courses. 14 and 15 year olds are able to ride ATVs while under parental supervision.

However, according to a report by CBC News, the ATV industry claims that the rate of injury has actually increased. The ATV industry claims that the number of ATV users has declined since the legislation was introduced. Therefore, the rate of injury has increased. However, the industry has not presented any statistics to back up their claims.

I have seen firsthand the debilitating injuries caused to young children as a result of ATV accidents. I supported Nova Scotia’s ATV legislation (and still do).

I think Dr. Yanchar’s study confirms what common sense says. The more training and supervision children receive in the use of ATVs the fewer injuries to children.

More Information

ATV's Pose Serious Risks to Children: Premier does a U-Turn

Concerned Familes for ATV Safety

I am very proud to announce the publication of my latest book: Brain Matter: The Survivor's Guide to Brain Injury Claims.

I have been representing survivors of traumatic brain injury for 20 years. After spending years volunteering with the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia I realized there is a real lack of public awareness about traumatic brain injury claims.

So I decided to write a book to try to help educate the public and to provide information to brain injury survivors, and their families, about the legal issues surrounding traumatic brain injuries.

Brain Matter: The Survivor's Guide to Brain Injury Claims is now for sale on Amazon.com. They even have an e-book version for Kindle.

I'm donating all the sale proceeds from Amazon.com to BIANS.

"What Caused My Injury?"

A defendant is only responsible for compensating a plaintiff for injuries caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct. Proving what injuries were, or were not, caused by the defendant’s conduct is often the biggest battle in many personal injury trials. See for example, Causation in Personal Injury Claims.

There has been some legal debate as to how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Athey v Leonati and the more recent decision of Resurfice Corp v. Hanke relate to one another.

Clarification

Last week the British Columbia Court of Appeal released a decision that helps clarify the application of these two landmark decisions on the law of causation.

In Farrant v. Laktin the plaintiff was injured in a car collision in 2004. Mr. Farrant had pre-existing issues with spinal degeneration which were symptomatic at the time of the car crash. After the collision his symptoms deteriorated.

At trial, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that his ongoing pain was due to the car crash. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not apply the proper legal test for causation and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal provided the following summary of the law of causation which is helpful reading for any personal injury lawyer (or plaintiff with a pre-existing condition or injury):

[8] To justify compensation for his disabling pain, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and that pain.

[9] The general test for causation, established in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at paras. 13-17, is the “but for” test: “but for” the accident, would the plaintiff have suffered the disabling pain? In Athey, the Court also stated that a plaintiff need not establish that the defendant’s negligence was the sole cause of the injury. If there are other potential non-tortious causes, such as the plaintiff’s spinal degeneration in this case, the defendant will still be found liable if the plaintiff can prove the accident caused or materially contributed to the disabling pain, beyond the de minimus range.

[10] In Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, 1 S.C.R. 333, the Supreme Court affirmed the “but for” test remains the basic test for determining causation, but developed the concept of “material contribution” in a different manner than that used in Athey, formulating a “material contribution” test as an exception to the “but for” test, a matter that is not relevant to this appeal. The Court replaced the Athey definition of “material contribution” to the plaintiff’s injury with the concept of “a substantial connection” between the injury and the defendant’s conduct. These developments were usefully summarized by Mr. Justice Smith, writing for the majority, in Sam v. Wilson, 2007 BCCA 622 at para. 109:

“Material contribution”, as that phrase was used in Athey v. Leonati, is synonymous with “substantial connection”, as that phrase was used by McLachlin C.J.C. above in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke. This causal yardstick should not be confused with the “material contribution test”. As McLachlin C.J.C. explained in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, at paras. 24 - 29, the “material contribution test” applies as an exception to the “but for” test of causation when it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injury using the “but for” test, where it is clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed the plaintiff thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and where the plaintiff’s injury falls within the ambit of the risk. …

[11] Thus, in applying the “but for” test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant’s conduct was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the de minimus level.

Want More Information?

I have been representing victims of serious personal injuries for more than 20 years. I wrote Crash Course:The Consumers Guide to Car Accident Claims in Nova Scotia to help educate car accident victims and their familes so they have a better chance of receiving full and fair compensation.

The book is for sale on Amazon.

But if you live in Atlantic Canada you can get a copy of my book, at no charge, by contacting me through this blog (put "Crash Course" in the subject line) or by calling me toll free at 1-877-423-2050.

http://www.apmlawyers.com/lawyer-attorney-1790130.html"Novel" Science in the Courtroom

In 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark decision R v Mohan settled the following general criteria for the admissibility of expert opinion evidence:

1) The evidence is relevant to some issue in the case;

2) the evidence is necessary to assist the trier of facts;

3) the evidence does not violate an exclusionary rule; and

4) the witness presenting the evidence is a properly qualified expert.

In R.J.D.D. the Supreme Court issued a warning about the wholesale admission of expert evidence. The SCC established the role of the court as one of "gatekeeper" for the admission of novel expert evidence.

I have posted before about the difficulties in proving brain injuries and some of the myths associated with minor traumatic brain injury: What is a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury? and 8 Myths of Traumatic Brain Injury

New Advances in Brain Injury Research

As medical science advances and new tools and tests are being created which help medical professionals diagnose potential brain injuries. See for example Brain Injury Claims: New Blood Test May Help Brain Injury Victims

However, whether or not those tools and tests can actually be used in court to prove the existence of brain injury is open to debate.

Brainwaves Reports Not Admissible

A recent decision from British Columbia addressed the admissibility of QEEG reports in a brain injury claim. QEEG stands for "Quantitative ElectroEncephaloGram". It is a digital measurement of electrical patterns at the surface of the scalp which primarily reflect cortical electrical activity in the brain. Put simply, a QEEG maps "brainwaves."

In Bialkowski v. Banfield the court ruled that while QEEG reports may be admissible in appropriate case the plaintiff in that case did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the reliability of the evidence.

Justice Bracken ruled the plaintiff’s neuropsychologist was not properly qualified to introduce the QEEG evidence.

The relevant findings are as follows:

[3] Electroencephalography (“EEG”) is a means of recording the electrical activity of the brain. Typically, electrical signals are received through 19 electrodes placed on certain areas of the scalp by attaching the electrodes to a cap that fits snugly over the patient’s head. The electrical activity is then recorded either on paper, or digitally on a computer. The clinician can then visually examine the recorded data to analyze the patterns of activity.

[4] QEEG is a relatively new neuroimaging technique. It uses computer assisted analysis of EEG tests. The raw EEG data is digitized and analyzed by means of a mathematical algorithm. It is said that the computer analysis is capable of extracting more information from the raw EEG data and enables the clinician to observe more subtle anomalies than can be seen with the eye on standard visual analysis. Using another program the digitized data is then compared to a normative database to determine if the data are consistent with what is normal for a comparable group of individuals…

[58] While there may be cases where QEEG evidence will be accepted as part of expert opinion in Canadian Courts it should only be through a neurologist who is trained and qualified in EEG testing and analysis. In my view, only a trained electroencephalographer who has the skill, knowledge and training to recognize the potential for error is qualified to give opinion evidence of QEEG analysis.

[59] On the evidence presented in this case, I find the QEEG evidence to be novel science and not sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence on the principles established in J.L.J. andMohan. I conclude it will not assist the trier of fact. As science progresses this may change and the evidence may meet the test of reliability so as to be admissible at some point in the future. As was noted in Seifert, the fact that expert evidence conflicts does not, by itself, make it inadmissible. Coburn, et al, recognize this in the conclusion of their report at p. 23, where it is stated:

Used cautiously and with appropriate recognition of its limitations, QEEG offers the clinician an accurate laboratory test to aid in the detection and differential diagnosis of several common neuropsychiatric disorders. …

Additional uses of QEEG showing promise but not yet sufficiently developed for routine clinical application include the prediction of medication efficacy and the prediction of the clinical cause of a disorder.

There is nothing in that conclusion to suggest it will become clinically useful in diagnosing traumatic brain injury in the near future; however, it remains open for such evidence to be offered through an appropriate expert if and when it satisfies the evidentiary requirements of Canadian Courts.

[60] The evidence of QEEG analysis given by Dr. Malcolm is rejected as not being offered by a qualified expert. QEEG does not meet the requisite reliability threshold and is still novel science.

Door Still Open?

The ruling leaves open the possibility that properly qualified experts, for example neurologists, could introduce evidence in the appropriate cases.

Continue reading " Using QEEG Test Results in Brain Injury Claims - Bialkowski v. Banfield " »

Tobacco Companies Strike Out Again

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in (again) on a lawsuit filed by the province of British Columbia, which seeks to recover health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses.

First Strike

This is the second time this lawsuit has made it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2001 British Columbia passed the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act that gave the province the authority to sue tobacco manufacturers for recovery of health care costs for people suffering from tobacco related illnesses.

The tobacco industry challenged the constitutional validity of the legislation.

Three issues were put to the Supreme Court of Canada:

1.Is the Act ultra vires the province by reason of extraterritoriality?

2.Is the Act constitutionally invalid as being inconsistent with judicial independence?

3.Is the Act constitutionally invalid for violating the rule of law?

In September 2005 the Court answered "no" to all of these issues and ruled that the legislation was constitutional.

Second Strike

In R v Imperial Tobacco Limited the defendants made a motion to add Canada as a third-party to British Columbia’s lawsuit.

The tobacco companies pleaded that if they were held liable to the Government of British Columbia, Canada should reimburse the tobacco companies for any damages payable. The Government of Canada brought a motion to strike out the third-party claim.

Test to Strike Pleadings

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the long-standing rule, applicable in all jurisdictions across Canada, that claims will only be dismissed if they have “no reasonable prospect of success”.

The Court stated at paragraphs 19 through 25 of the decision:

[19] The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is a valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial.

[20] This promotes two goods — efficiency in the conduct of the litigation and correct results. Striking out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success promotes litigation efficiency, reducing time and cost. The litigants can focus on serious claims, without devoting days and sometimes weeks of evidence and argument to claims that are in any event hopeless. The same applies to judges and juries, whose attention is focused where it should be — on claims that have a reasonable chance of success. The efficiency gained by weeding out unmeritorious claims in turn contributes to better justice. The more the evidence and arguments are trained on the real issues, the more likely it is that the trial process will successfully come to grips with the parties’ respective positions on those issues and the merits of the case.

[21] Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

[22] A motion to strike for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action proceeds on the basis that the facts pleaded are true, unless they are manifestly incapable of being proven: Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, at p. 455. No evidence is admissible on such a motion: r. 19(27) of the Supreme Court Rules (now r. 9-5(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules). It is incumbent on the claimant to clearly plead the facts upon which it relies in making its claim. A claimant is not entitled to rely on the possibility that new facts may turn up as the case progresses. The claimant may not be in a position to prove the facts pleaded at the time of the motion. It may only hope to be able to prove them. But plead them it must. The facts pleaded are the firm basis upon which the possibility of success of the claim must be evaluated. If they are not pleaded, the exercise cannot be properly conducted…It is not about evidence, but the pleadings. The facts pleaded are taken as true. Whether the evidence substantiates the pleaded facts, now or at some future date, is irrelevant to the motion to strike. The judge on the motion to strike cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show. To require the judge to do so would be to gut the motion to strike of its logic and ultimately render it useless.

[24] This is not unfair to the claimant. The presumption that the facts pleaded are true operates in the claimant’s favour. The claimant chooses what facts to plead, with a view to the cause of action it is asserting. If new developments raise new possibilities — as they sometimes do — the remedy is to amend the pleadings to plead new facts at that time.

[25] Related to the issue of whether the motion should be refused because of the possibility of unknown evidence appearing at a future date is the issue of speculation. The judge on a motion to strike asks if the claim has any reasonable prospect of success. In the world of abstract speculation, there is a mathematical chance that any number of things might happen. That is not what the test on a motion to strike seeks to determine. Rather, it operates on the assumption that the claim will proceed through the court system in the usual way — in an adversarial system where judges are under a duty to apply the law as set out in (and as it may develop from) statutes and precedent. The question is whether, considered in the context of the law and the litigation process, the claim has no reasonable chance of succeeding.

Why Should Nova Scotians Care?

The decision is of interest to citizens in this province because our government recently enacted legislation similar to British Columbia and is currently considering filing a claim for recovery for health care costs incurred for treating tobacco-related illnesses.

More Information

Smoke Free Canada - Tobacco litigation timeline