Krangle (Guardian ad litem of) v. Brisco

Krangle (Guardian ad litem of) v. Brisco

The trial judge's evidence‑based finding that the disabled child would withdraw from his parents' charge at age 19 and receive state‑funded group home care is dispositive; post‑trial amendments to the Family Relations Act do not make the parents liable in these circumstances and the contingency award made at trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 SCC 9
Parties
Appellant (defendant at Trial): Dr. Stanley Fred Morrill; Respondent (infant Plaintiff Represented by Guardian Ad Litem): Mervyn Dudley Krangle; Respondent (mother and Guardian Ad Litem): Phapphim Krangle; Respondent (father): Murray John Krangle
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (tort and Family Law) / Final Appeal Judgment of Supreme Court of Canada Restoring Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored/affirmed
Legal Topics
Damages for Future Care, Maintenance and Support Obligations, Statutory Interpretation, Collateral Benefits, Contingency Awards
Source Language
english
Family Law Torts Damages for Future Care Maintenance and Support Obligations Statutory Interpretation Collateral Benefits Contingency Awards

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Stanley Fred Morrill

Appellant (defendant at Trial)

Mervyn Dudley Krangle

Respondent (infant Plaintiff Represented by Guardian Ad Litem)

Phapphim Krangle

Respondent (mother and Guardian Ad Litem)

Murray John Krangle

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (tort and Family Law) / Final Appeal Judgment of Supreme Court of Canada Restoring Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parents entitled to damages for cost of care after disabled child reaches adulthood
  2. 2 Whether amendments to the Family Relations Act made parents legally responsible for adult child's care
  3. 3 Whether post‑trial legislation may be considered in assessing damages

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's evidence‑based finding that the disabled child would withdraw from his parents' charge at age 19 and receive state‑funded group home care is dispositive; post‑trial amendments to the Family Relations Act do not make the parents liable in these circumstances and the contingency award made at trial adequately covers the remote risk of legislative change, so the trial judgment awarding no damages for adult care (subject to the contingency award) is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored/affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Trial judgment restored and affirmed