Schray v. Jim Pattison Industries Ltd.

Schray v. Jim Pattison Industries Ltd.

The summary judgment could not stand because the trial judge made a material factual error regarding the sweep-log recording practice that undermined her conclusion that no sweep occurred or that no water was present; disputed factual issues remained that required a trial rather than summary dismissal.

Citation
2007 BCCA 514
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Elsie Hilda Schray; Respondent / Defendant: Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. operating as Save-On-Foods; Respondent / Defendant: PineTree Village Holdings Inc.
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Judgment in Personal Injury/occupiers' Liability Action / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Action to Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; action remitted to Supreme Court for trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (rule 18 A), Inspection and Maintenance Systems, Standard of Care, Business Records and Sweep Logs, Appeal and Remittal to Trial
Source Language
English
Occupiers' Liability Negligence Civil Procedure Evidence Summary Judgment (rule 18 A) Inspection and Maintenance Systems Standard of Care Business Records and Sweep Logs +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elsie Hilda Schray

Appellant / Plaintiff

Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. operating as Save-On-Foods

Respondent / Defendant

PineTree Village Holdings Inc.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Judgment in Personal Injury/occupiers' Liability Action / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Action to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Rule 18A was appropriate given contested factual issues
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's inspection and sweeping system met the standard of reasonable care
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a contemporaneous sweep-log entry undermined the defendants' proof of compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The summary judgment could not stand because the trial judge made a material factual error regarding the sweep-log recording practice that undermined her conclusion that no sweep occurred or that no water was present; disputed factual issues remained that required a trial rather than summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; action remitted to Supreme Court for trial

Orders

  • Summary judgment dismissing the action set aside
  • Action returned to the Supreme Court for trial