Middelaer v. Delta (Corporation)

Middelaer v. Delta (Corporation)

The chambers judge exercised his discretion reasonably in concluding the expert evidence and record were inconclusive on standard of care and causation and that it would be unjust to determine liability on the summary evidence; the Court of Appeal, applying a deferential standard, found the chambers judge was not clearly wrong and dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to grant summary judgment.

Citation
2013 BCCA 189
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Corporation of Delta; Respondents (plaintiffs): Laurel Middelaer, Personal Representative of the Deceased, Alexa Middelaer, Laurel Middelaer and Michael Middelaer; Respondent/defendant: Carol Ann Berner; Respondent/defendant: Daphne Middelaer; Respondent (third Party): Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Tort Wrongful Death and Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Refusing Summary Disposition Under Rule 9 7
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; chambers judge's order refusing summary disposition upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Standard of Care, Causation, Expert Evidence, Speed Hump Design and Spacing
Source Language
English
Negligence Municipal Liability Civil Procedure Road Safety/traffic Regulation Summary Judgment Standard of Care Causation Expert Evidence +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

The Corporation of Delta

Appellant/defendant

Laurel Middelaer, Personal Representative of the Deceased, Alexa Middelaer, Laurel Middelaer and Michael Middelaer

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Carol Ann Berner

Respondent/defendant

Daphne Middelaer

Respondent/defendant

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Respondent (third Party)

Procedural Posture

Tort Wrongful Death and Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Refusing Summary Disposition Under Rule 9 7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chambers judge erred in finding the action unsuitable for summary disposition under Rule 9-7
  2. 2 Whether the chambers judge misapprehended or improperly weighed conflicting expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether admissible evidence established breach of standard of care by Delta regarding speed hump spacing

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge exercised his discretion reasonably in concluding the expert evidence and record were inconclusive on standard of care and causation and that it would be unjust to determine liability on the summary evidence; the Court of Appeal, applying a deferential standard, found the chambers judge was not clearly wrong and dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to grant summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; chambers judge's order refusing summary disposition upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the chambers judge dated July 16, 2012 refusing to dismiss the action under Rule 9-7 is affirmed