Feener v. McKenzie

Feener v. McKenzie

Majority (Hall, Spence, Laskin JJ.) allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge misdirected the jury on the statutory onus under s.221(1) by implying a shifting burden and by failing to point out material defects in the defendant's evidence and by improperly minimizing the potential relevance of the defendant's breach of s.62(1), thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Citation
[1972] SCR 525
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Rodney Charles Feener by his next friend Charles Feener; Defendant/respondent: Dewar Forrest McKenzie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Statutory Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Jury Direction/misdirection, Breach of Licensing Requirement (s.62(1)), New Trial
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Evidence (onus) Statutory Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence Jury Direction/misdirection Breach of Licensing Requirement (s.62(1)) +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Charles Feener by his next friend Charles Feener

Plaintiff/appellant

Dewar Forrest McKenzie

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Negligence Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect and application of s.221(1)(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act on the onus of proof
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the statutory onus
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge improperly withdrew or expressed an opinion on liability

Ratio Decidendi

Majority (Hall, Spence, Laskin JJ.) allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge misdirected the jury on the statutory onus under s.221(1) by implying a shifting burden and by failing to point out material defects in the defendant's evidence and by improperly minimizing the potential relevance of the defendant's breach of s.62(1), thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered