Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• The appellant motorcyclist failed to establish that an unidentified pick-up truck driver's negligence was the factual or legal cause of his collision on Nanaimo Street in Vancouver.

• Once Mr. Bezanson slowed down and positioned himself behind the pick-up truck, the trial judge found the hazard had abated and no further risk existed.

• His subsequent lane change into the left lane was deemed "unnecessarily aggressive and not evasive," undermining any claim of emergency reaction.

• Application of the "agony of the moment" doctrine was rejected because the approximately 10-second timeframe gave the appellant considerable time to react.

• The "but for" test for factual causation was not satisfied, as the appellant's own maneuver — not the truck driver's negligence — was found to be the factual cause of the head-on collision.

• Because causation in fact was not established, the Court of Appeal declined to assess legal causation, finding it logically incoherent to do so absent factual cause.

The motorcycle collision on Nanaimo Street

On November 1, 2017, just before 5 p.m., Jamie Bezanson was riding his motorcycle southbound on Nanaimo Street in Vancouver in the right curb lane. As he approached the T-intersection of East 29th Avenue and Nanaimo Street, an unidentified pick-up truck turned left onto Nanaimo Street and immediately drifted from the left lane into the right lane, directly in front of Mr. Bezanson. The drifting posed a clear hazard, putting the motorcyclist at risk of being pushed into a parked car or the curb. Mr. Bezanson responded by slowing from approximately 50 km/h to about 40 km/h, backing off and positioning himself behind the pick-up truck, which was now straddling both lanes.

The passing maneuver and head-on collision

After slowing down and placing himself safely behind the pick-up truck, Mr. Bezanson attempted to pass the truck by moving into the left lane. At this point, Nanaimo Street curved and a median separated northbound and southbound traffic. As Mr. Bezanson moved into the left lane, he failed to navigate the curve, crossed over the median, and collided head-on with a Toyota FJ Cruiser travelling northbound. The entire sequence of events — from the pick-up truck's turn onto Nanaimo Street to the collision with the FJ Cruiser — unfolded over a period of approximately, but no more than, 10 seconds.

The trial decision and causation findings

At the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the trial was on liability only. The trial judge found that the pick-up truck driver was negligent in drifting into the curb lane. However, the judge concluded that Mr. Bezanson failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the truck driver's negligence was either the factual or legal cause of his injuries. Central to this analysis was the finding that once Mr. Bezanson slowed down and backed off, the hazard created by the pick-up truck had abated. His subsequent decision to move into the left lane was not evasive and was not taken to avoid a collision — the judge characterized it as "unnecessarily aggressive and not evasive." The judge also found that Mr. Bezanson was not acting in the "agony of the moment," as the roughly 10-second window constituted "a fair bit of time to react to a driving hazard." Mr. Bezanson's action was therefore dismissed.

The three grounds of appeal

Mr. Bezanson appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, raising three alleged errors of law: (1) the trial judge misapplied the "but for" test by focusing on Mr. Bezanson's reaction rather than the pick-up truck driver's contribution; (2) the judge required an overly specific foreseeability of the sequence of events when assessing legal causation; and (3) the judge failed to adequately apply the "agony of the moment" doctrine to Mr. Bezanson's conduct. He relied on cases such as Biggar v. Enns, Graham v. Carson, Skinner v. Fu, and Helgason v. Rondeau to support his position.

The appellate court's analysis

Writing for the unanimous panel, Justice Warren addressed each ground. On the "agony of the moment" doctrine, the Court held that the trial judge properly acknowledged the doctrine but reasonably found it inapplicable because Mr. Bezanson was not forced to react in an emergency or make a split-second decision — the hazard had already been neutralized when he slowed down. On the "but for" test, the Court distinguished this case from Skinner v. Fu and Helgason v. Rondeau, noting that unlike those cases, the trial judge here did not improperly focus on whether Mr. Bezanson could have responded differently to an ongoing hazard. Rather, the judge found the hazard had already abated before the lane change was initiated and the lane change itself was not evasive. As for legal causation, the Court found it unnecessary to address this issue, reasoning that where factual causation has not been established, it would be "logically incoherent" to assess whether an event was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of conduct that did not, in fact, cause the event.

The ruling and outcome

The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Bezanson's appeal, with Justice Warren's reasons concurred in by Justice Groberman and Justice Edelmann. The respondent, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), was the successful party, and the trial judge's original dismissal of Mr. Bezanson's action was upheld. No specific monetary award was at issue, as the trial had been conducted on the question of liability only, and liability was not established in favour of the appellant. Consequently, no damages amount was determined or granted in this proceeding.