Pursuant to Rule 3-7(23) of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, a party to an ICBC claim has the right to request “particulars” from the other party. Essentially what this means is that the requesting party is looking for more specific information with respect to what another party has plead in their respective pleadings. For example, if the Plaintiff is seeking damages for loss of income, then ICBC’S lawyer may make a request for particulars of that specific head of damage, such as dates and amounts.
In Campbell v. Bouma, the Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, and consequently pursued an ICBC claim for many types of damages, such as pain and suffering, loss of income, and special damages (out of pocket expenses). Early on in the litigation, ICBC’S lawyer demanded that the Plaintiff provide particulars of the income loss and the out of pocket expenses. Counsel for the Plaintiff took the position that the application was premature. The Court denied the application of ICBC’S lawyer, stating that it did not make much sense for the Plaintiff to have to continually particularize income loss and out of pocket expenses.
 The way the demand for particulars is framed, it seeks particulars in relation to past wage loss and ongoing or future wage loss. Future wage loss is usually awarded as a loss of capacity claim, unless there is a specific determinable actual future wage loss, such as known time off for future surgery.
 It is trite, of course, that “past wage loss” is determined as of the date of trial. In this case, no trial date has been set.
 Cases require trial management conferences. It is typical for the presider at a trial management conference to order particularization of wage loss and an updated particularization of special damages, so that the defendant is aware of those claims close to the trial date.
 Applying proportionality principles, it makes little sense to require a plaintiff to be continuously updating past wage loss and special damages claimed; those claims should be disclosed as they are known to enable an efficient examination for discovery, but often do not require formal particularization, such that they become part of the pleadings, until close to the trial date.