A recent decision from the BC Supreme Court in Matanagh v Lanctot, 2025 BCSC 638 (“Matanagh”) serves as a reminder that a plaintiff’s reliability and credibility can be foundational to establishing damages at trial. In the subject case, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on October 24, 2018. The quantum of the plaintiff’s damages was the sole issue before the Court. At trial, the plaintiff advanced a claim exceeding $2.4 million in non-pecuniary losses, loss of housekeeping capacity, costs of future care, and special damages. Following a 9-day trial, the plaintiff was awarded $97,641.40.
As set out in the reasons, reliability and credibility of a witness are related but distinct. A witness’ reliability concerns the accuracy of the testimony of a witness, through the witness’ ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events in issue. A witness’ credibility concerns the trustworthiness of the evidence, based on the witness’ veracity and sincerity, as well as the accuracy of the evidence provided. In Matanagh, the reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence was the focus, with the trial judge largely avoiding making negative findings on the plaintiff’s credibility. The trial judge summarized the findings on the plaintiff’s reliability as follows:
[23] In this case, the number and nature of the inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s evidence gives me little confidence that the answers he gave to the Court and the information he provided to the healthcare professionals was reliable. In the case of expert opinions which rely on the accuracy of the statements made by Mr. Esmaili Matanagh to the experts, my concerns have affected the amount of weight I have placed on a particular opinion.
In Matanagh, the plaintiff relied upon medical reports from a physiatrist, psychiatrist, and occupational therapist in support of the damages sought at trial. Causation for the plaintiff’s injuries presented as a significant issue due to the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and post-accident events involving the plaintiff. Notably, insofar as the physiatrist and psychiatrist opinions relied upon by the plaintiff, the trial judge concluded that said expert reports were grounded upon the “unreliable self-reports” of the plaintiff, and thereby were “unreliable” or “suspect”: see paras 97 and 167. On the balance of the evidence, the plaintiff’s positions on causation and the extent of injuries suffered in the accident were largely not accepted by the trial judge.
In particular, the plaintiff advanced a claim for $1,950,000 for future costs of care, on the basis the plaintiff required constant care and supervision due to the injuries suffered in the accident. However, the Court concluded that: the evidence supporting full-time care was unreliable; the evidence did not support the conclusion that accident caused the plaintiff to require full-time care; and, in any event, the plaintiff had fully recovered from his accident-related injuries: see para 212.The $1,950,000 claim for future costs of care was dismissed in its entirety.
To place Matanagh in the appropriate context, it is unlikely to stand for any general proposition at law. A trial judge is entitled to accept some and reject some of a witness’s testimony in light of the strengths or frailties in that witness’s evidence, and those findings will be afforded deference at the appellate level. Nonetheless, the result in Matanagh serves as an example of the potential significance of a plaintiff’s reliability at trial.