Zambo v. 848875 Ontario Inc. (Gary’s No Frills)
The appeal was dismissed because the evidentiary record supported the jury’s finding that the respondents took reasonable care and the required high threshold for setting aside a jury verdict was not met; appellate court will not substitute its assessment of credibility for the jury’s.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 499
- Parties
- Appellant: Valeria Zambo; Respondent: 848875 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Gary’s No Frills; Respondent: 1843693 Ontario Limited; Respondent: Riocan Holdings Inc.; Respondent: TTKA Inc. c.o.b. as Clintar Landscape Management; Respondent: John Doe
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated November 30, 2017; Decision of Court of Appeal (oral Reasons Released June 12, 2019)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Standard of Care, Jury Verdict, Setting Aside Jury Verdict
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Valeria Zambo
Appellant
848875 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Gary’s No Frills
Respondent
1843693 Ontario Limited
Respondent
Riocan Holdings Inc.
Respondent
TTKA Inc. c.o.b. as Clintar Landscape Management
Respondent
John Doe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated November 30, 2017; Decision of Court of Appeal (oral Reasons Released June 12, 2019)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was evidence to support the jury verdict that defendants exercised reasonable care to keep the plaintiff reasonably safe on the premises
- 2 Whether the jury verdict was so plainly unreasonable and unjust that it should be set aside on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the evidentiary record supported the jury’s finding that the respondents took reasonable care and the required high threshold for setting aside a jury verdict was not met; appellate court will not substitute its assessment of credibility for the jury’s.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- The appellant shall pay the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 as agreed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Zambo v. 848875 Ontario Inc. (Gary’s No Frills) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-06-14 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 499 Docket numbers C64770 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; Fairburn, J. Michal; Nordheimer, Ian V.B. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Zambo v. 848875 Ontario Inc. (Gary’s No Frills), 2019 ONCA 499 DATE: 20190614 DOCKET: C64770 Lauwers, Fairburn and Nordheimer JJ.A. BETWEEN Valeria Zambo Plaintiff (Appellant) and 848875 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Gary’s No Frills, 1843693 Ontario Limited, Riocan Holdings Inc. and John Doe Defendants (Respondent) AND BETWEEN Valeria Zambo Plaintiff (Appellant) and TTKA Inc. c.o.b. as Clintar Landscape Management and John Doe Defendants (Respondent) Karl Arvai, for the appellant Thomas J. Donnelly, for the respondents Heard and released orally: June 12, 2019 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Johanne Morissette of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 30, 2017. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals from a jury verdict that found that the respondents took “such reasonable care, in all the circumstances of the case, to see that the plaintiff was reasonably safe while on the premises” on which the appellant slipped and fell. The appellant submits that there was no evidence that would have supported that verdict. [2] We disagree. The test for setting aside a jury’s verdict is extremely high. It requires that the court conclude that the verdict is “so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the Court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it”: Gutbir v. University Health Network, 2012 ONCA 66 at para. 5. [3] The appellant has not met that test. The appellant essentially submits that the jury should have rejected the defence evidence in favour of the plaintiff’s evidence. That decision was entirely within the purview of the jury. It is not for us to interfere and substitute our view of the evidence for that of the jury. [4] The appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay to the appellant costs fixed at $12,000 as agreed. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “Fairburn J.A.” I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.