Canada Case Law

Murphy v. Morgan

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred by applying specific negative contingency deductions to non-pecuniary, past and future earning capacity awards without firm evidentiary grounding or proper legal analysis; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside those contingency deductions and substituted higher awards: non-pecuniary $175,000; past loss of earning capacity $325,000; future loss of earning capacity $400,000.

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Contingency deductions
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Standard of review
• Intervening events

Read case analysis

Gandha v. Beauchesne

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on liability after finding the jury was not properly instructed on drivers’ legal duties in a rear-end collision case.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Contributory negligence
• Jury instructions
• Motor vehicle act obligations (yielding, following distance, impediment)

Read case analysis

Evans v. Berry

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in a dog-bite case. The Court of Appeal upheld findings that scienter was not proven and that the owners did not breach the standard of care.

• Scienter doctrine
• Duty of care
• Duty to warn
• Standard of care
• Contributory negligence
• Volenti non fit injuria

Read case analysis

Holt v. Holt

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge’s finding that $175,000 paid to the appellant after separation was an advance on his share of family property.

• Division of family property
• Business valuation
• Characterization of post‑separation payments (salary v. dividends)
• Set‑off/advances against buyout
• Standard of review of factual findings
• Family-property-division

Read case analysis

Nowlan v. Monsour

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and valuations were reasonable and not palpably and overridingly erroneous, the challenged orders (no occupation rent, spousal support, allocation of car and pool liabilities) were supported by the evidence and legal principles, and the appellant's material non-disclosure of whole life insurance further undermines his challenges and supports finality of the trial judgment.

Source excerpt

• Equalization payment
• Net family property
• Valuation date
• Occupation rent and ouster
• Spousal support quantum and commencement
• Asset non-disclosure

Read case analysis

K.S.P. v. J.T.P.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family law application partly granted. The court ordered limited anonymization and targeted records and expert orders, but refused bifurcation, adjournment, and extra discovery time.

• Bifurcation
• Adjournment
• Anonymization
• Medical records production
• Discovery time limits
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Parhar v. Weaver

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a dental informed-consent case, holding the trial judge could find chronic nerve pain after a root canal was not a material risk requiring disclosure.

• Material risk disclosure
• Causation
• Standard of review
• Scope of contractual remedies for non-disclosure
• Informed-consent
• Medical-negligence

Read case analysis

Kaur v. Tse

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal from a damages assessment in a motor vehicle injury case was allowed in part. The Court increased non-pecuniary damages but upheld mitigation and no future income award.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Mitigation
• Loss of future earning capacity
• Credibility findings
• Expert evidence
• Non-pecuniary-damages

Read case analysis

Johnstone v. Rogic

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a $1.5 million award for loss of future earning capacity, finding the trial judge’s inferences were supported by the evidence.

• Loss of future earning capacity
• Assessment of damages
• Standard of review (palpable and overriding error)
• Capital asset approach
• Medical and lay evidence
• Loss-of-future-earning-capacity

Read case analysis

Choquette v. Choquette

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given the motion judge's finding of a material change in circumstances and his factual conclusion that the appellant made no serious effort to become self-sufficient, he properly applied the objectives of s.17(7) of the Divorce Act, balanced compensatory and need considerations, and permissibly terminated support; no legal error, misapprehension of evidence or clearly wrong outcome was shown on appeal, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Variation of spousal support
• Self-sufficiency
• Compensatory support
• Imputation of income
• Costs

Read case analysis