Dickinson v. Unicorn Valley Investments

Dickinson v. Unicorn Valley Investments

Majority: The motions judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues for trial on both disputed matters — the appellant's assertion he intentionally held the lead shank could not be resolved on a summary motion given conflicting discovery and affidavit evidence, and the accident facts plus other evidence (breed/reputation, prior incidents, proposed McCoy testimony, post‑accident castration and subsequent incident) were sufficient to raise an inference of prior knowledge and dangerousness that must be assessed at trial; therefore the appeal is allowed and the summary judgment motion dismissed.

Citation
C37452
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Clifton Lawrence Dickinson; Plaintiff (appellant) / Litigation Guardian: Debbie Irene Dickinson; Plaintiff (appellant) Minor (by Litigation Guardian Debbie Irene Dickinson): Erin Cheryl Dickinson; Plaintiff (appellant) Minor (by Litigation Guardian Debbie Irene Dickinson): Kelly Lynn Dickinson; Defendant (respondent): Unicorn Valley Investments Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): John A. Holmes; Defendant (respondent): Ralph Lake; Defendant (respondent): John G. Christensen
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (motion Judge: Justice Kenneth A. Langdon; Judgment Dated February 16, 2001)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment motion dismissed; costs awarded to appellants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care, Dangerous Animal/animal Liability, Prior Knowledge
Source Language
English
Civil Torts Negligence Procedure (summary Judgment) Summary Judgment Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Dangerous Animal/animal Liability +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clifton Lawrence Dickinson

Plaintiff (appellant)

Debbie Irene Dickinson

Plaintiff (appellant) / Litigation Guardian

Erin Cheryl Dickinson

Plaintiff (appellant) Minor (by Litigation Guardian Debbie Irene Dickinson)

Kelly Lynn Dickinson

Plaintiff (appellant) Minor (by Litigation Guardian Debbie Irene Dickinson)

Unicorn Valley Investments Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

John A. Holmes

Defendant (respondent)

Ralph Lake

Defendant (respondent)

John G. Christensen

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (motion Judge: Justice Kenneth A. Langdon; Judgment Dated February 16, 2001)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial as to whether the appellant intentionally held on to the lead shank (occupiers/causation)
  2. 2 Whether the owners had prior knowledge that the horse was dangerous so as to create a duty of care which they failed to discharge (owner liability for dangerous animal)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The motions judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues for trial on both disputed matters — the appellant's assertion he intentionally held the lead shank could not be resolved on a summary motion given conflicting discovery and affidavit evidence, and the accident facts plus other evidence (breed/reputation, prior incidents, proposed McCoy testimony, post‑accident castration and subsequent incident) were sufficient to raise an inference of prior knowledge and dangerousness that must be assessed at trial; therefore the appeal is allowed and the summary judgment motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment motion dismissed; costs awarded to appellants

Orders

  • Summary judgment motion dismissed
  • Appeal allowed