Canada Case Law

Dosen v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. (Security National Insurance Company)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal allowed Fasco’s appeal, holding the motion judge erred by not applying the plain and obvious test correctly and by striking Fasco’s defences: it was not plain and obvious that the Quebec proceedings and the Ontario proceedings involved the same cause of action or that Fasco should have raised contractual indemnity in the Quebec litigation; issue estoppel and abuse of process were not plainly established, and the striking of pleadings in their entirety was unjustified; matter remitted for trial; costs awarded to Fasco.

Source excerpt

• Res judicata
• Issue estoppel
• Cause of action estoppel
• Abuse of process
• Rule 21.01(3)(d)
• Contribution and indemnity

Read case analysis

Carrasco v. Gibson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the plaintiff’s pre-existing fibromyalgia and headaches were exacerbated by a rear-end collision, then assessed damages on a crumbling-skull basis.

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care costs
• Pre-existing conditions (crumbling skull)
• Expert opinion credibility

Read case analysis

De Fazio v. McClelland

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court awarded damages after two motor vehicle collisions, accepting thoracic outlet syndrome and myofascial pain, but reduced non-pecuniary damages for failure to mitigate.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past wage loss
• Future earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Failure to mitigate
• Causation

Read case analysis

Dhaul v. Meahan

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded damages for chronic soft tissue injuries from two admitted motor vehicle accidents, but found no proven future income loss from the missed promotion.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future care costs
• Loss of earning capacity
• Loss of housekeeping capacity
• Subrogation
• Special damages

Read case analysis

Riley v. Ritsco

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held Mr. Ritsco fully at fault for a left-turn collision and awarded Mr. Riley damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, and special damages.

• Negligence
• Apportionment of liability
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past income loss
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care

Read case analysis

Faulkner v. Duncan (City)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed applications by the City of Duncan and Chew Excavating for leave to file third party notices, finding the proposed claims were bound to fail.

• Third party notice
• Contribution and indemnity (negligence act s.4)
• Duty of care
• Mitigation of damages
• Indivisible damages
• Leave to add third parties

Read case analysis

Nijjar v. Raymond

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a limitation-based application, holding that the insurer reasonably awaited an expert fire-causation report before time began to run.

• Postponement of limitation period
• Means of knowledge
• Due diligence in obtaining expert advice
• Causation in fire cases
• Fire prevention (metropolis) act 1774
• Limitation-period

Read case analysis

Lilly v. Muise

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Claimant was more probably first into the intersection and therefore had the right of way under s.122; the defendant failed to yield and is legally responsible for the collision, so claimant's damages are awarded and the counterclaim is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Right of way
• Apportionment of liability
• Damages
• Interest and costs
• Evidence and credibility

Read case analysis

D'Oliveira v. Kal Tire Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Kal negligently serviced Ms. D'Oliveira's brakes, causing a sudden brake failure and serious injuries, and awarded damages of $40,995.24.

• Negligence
• Causation
• Liability of repairer
• Damages - non-pecuniary
• Damages - special
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Guarantee Company of North America v. Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held that Karakas is binding and the present case is not distinguishable from Karakas; therefore the motion judge was correct to apply Karakas and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Binding precedent
• Distinguishing precedent
• Ancillary use of property
• Costs

Read case analysis