Langstaff v. Marson

Langstaff v. Marson

The fresh evidence was admitted because it bore directly on the validity of the trial process; viewed by an informed reasonable person the judge's prior opinion in a near-identical pre-trial, his recusal there for association with the plaintiff and his subsequent decision in the mirror-image trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the verdict could not stand and a new trial was ordered with costs to the appellant.

Citation
2014 ONCA 510
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Scott Langstaff; Defendant (appellant): Robert Terry Marson; Defendant (appellant): Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort: Negligence and Vicarious Liability; Damages for Sexual Assault) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Jury Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; fresh evidence admitted; jury verdict and judgment set aside; new trial ordered; costs awarded to the appellant in the amount of $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault Damages, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Fresh Evidence, Recusal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Civil Tort Evidence Judicial Procedure Sexual Assault Damages Negligence Vicarious Liability Fresh Evidence +2 more

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Langstaff

Plaintiff (respondent)

Robert Terry Marson

Defendant (appellant)

Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort: Negligence and Vicarious Liability; Damages for Sexual Assault) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Jury Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence discloses a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias requiring a new trial
  3. 3 Whether counsel waived the right to object to the judge by failing to raise the issue at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence was admitted because it bore directly on the validity of the trial process; viewed by an informed reasonable person the judge's prior opinion in a near-identical pre-trial, his recusal there for association with the plaintiff and his subsequent decision in the mirror-image trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the verdict could not stand and a new trial was ordered with costs to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; fresh evidence admitted; jury verdict and judgment set aside; new trial ordered; costs awarded to the appellant in the amount of $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Orders

  • Fresh evidence admitted
  • Appeal allowed