Carlson v. Peters

Carlson v. Peters

The Court held the defendant did not satisfy the onus of showing there is no genuine issue for trial; because an issue remained about distraction and failure to keep a proper look-out possibly contributing to the injuries, summary judgment was inappropriate and the motion must be dismissed.

Citation
C30487
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Kimberly A. Carlson; Plaintiff (appellant): Danny S. Wilson; Plaintiff (appellant): Teah Carlson-Wilson; Plaintiff (appellant): Shelbey Carlson-Wilson; Defendant (respondent): Bruce G. Peters; Defendant (respondent): Canada Life Casualty Insurance Company; Defendant (respondent): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario; Defendant (respondent): Murray N. Ellies; Defendant (respondent): Robert Dinnen
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment / Appeal From Order of Mr. Justice D. Lissaman Dated August 25, 1998
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Justice Lissaman set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Summary Judgment Negligence Duty of Care Causation Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberly A. Carlson

Plaintiff (appellant)

Danny S. Wilson

Plaintiff (appellant)

Teah Carlson-Wilson

Plaintiff (appellant)

Shelbey Carlson-Wilson

Plaintiff (appellant)

Bruce G. Peters

Defendant (respondent)

Canada Life Casualty Insurance Company

Defendant (respondent)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario

Defendant (respondent)

Murray N. Ellies

Defendant (respondent)

Robert Dinnen

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment / Appeal From Order of Mr. Justice D. Lissaman Dated August 25, 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant met the onus of showing there is no genuine issue for trial
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was distracted and failed to keep a proper look-out
  3. 3 Whether the failure to keep a proper look-out contributed to the appellant's injuries such that summary judgment was inappropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the defendant did not satisfy the onus of showing there is no genuine issue for trial; because an issue remained about distraction and failure to keep a proper look-out possibly contributing to the injuries, summary judgment was inappropriate and the motion must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Justice Lissaman set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of Justice Lissaman set aside