Canada Case Law

Stephen v. Baker

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the Baker defendants were 100% liable for the First Accident (left turn into oncoming lane), (2) Gerrard admitted and was fully at fault for the Second Accident, and the defendants are equally responsible for damages; (3) the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and developed Somatic Symptom Disorder with psychiatric overlay attributable to the accidents but CRPS was not established; (4) the plaintiff is disabled from the workforce but exaggerated functional limitations, so damages are reduced from plaintiff's projections; (5) awards…

Source excerpt

• Somatic symptom disorder (ssd)
• Complex regional pain syndrome (crps)
• Causation
• Liability apportionment
• Damages (general and pecuniary)
• Credibility and surveillance evidence

Read case analysis

Segarich v. Andrews

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application dismissed because the proposed estoppel/res judicata amendments were useless—criminal guilty plea is evidence but does not bar denial of civil liability—and the proposed fraud claims were bound to fail because the insurer, not the plaintiff, is the proper claimant for misrepresentations to the insurer and pleadings themselves cannot constitute tortious conduct; thus leave to amend was refused and costs awarded to defendants.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Estoppel and res judicata
• Fraud and deceit
• Consent to use vehicle
• Use of criminal guilty plea in civil proceedings
• Costs

Read case analysis

Bezanson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's unchallenged findings of fact established that the hazard created by the pick-up driver's negligence had abated before the appellant moved into the left lane and that the lane change was not an evasive, 'agony of the moment' response; on that factual basis the appellant failed to prove factual causation on a balance of probabilities, and no reviewable error in law was shown.

Source excerpt

• Factual causation
• Legal causation
• Agony of the moment doctrine
• Foreseeability
• Remoteness

Read case analysis

Morrisey v Bulmer

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the balance of probabilities the court found that Bulmer negligently crossed the centreline into Dean’s lane and, due to his position and speed, caused the first collision and the subsequent collision with Murray; credible eyewitness testimony and the Zwicker/Everett expert evidence were preferred over CEP’s modelling and photogrammetric measurements, and neither Dean nor Murray breached a causative standard of care — therefore Bulmer is solely liable and damages are reserved.

Source excerpt

• Liability apportionment
• Causation
• Expert accident reconstruction
• Credibility findings
• Contributory negligence
• Post‑accident conduct

Read case analysis

Fearon v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred in law by failing to assess the appellants' conduct holistically in the factual context of an extensive but unsuccessful RCMP criminal investigation into a stolen vehicle; because the police undertook significant investigative steps that yielded no identification and further steps by the appellants would have been highly unlikely to succeed and would have amounted to a de facto criminal investigation, the appellants satisfied s.24(5) that all reasonable efforts were made and the unknown driver's identity is not ascertainable.

Source excerpt

• Hit-and-run
• Nominal defendant
• Insurance (vehicle) act s.24(5)
• Reasonableness of investigative steps
• Reliance on police investigation

Read case analysis

Kanackathundiyil v. McAllister

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the plaintiff credible and established on a balance of probabilities that the 2018 motor vehicle collision caused the plaintiff's neck pain with restricted motion, right arm pain and radiculopathy (leading to C6/7 surgery), new throbbing lower back pain, post-traumatic headaches and consequent mood disturbance; pre-accident episodic lower back spasm was not causative of the new disabling symptoms; plaintiff was disabled from work despite earnest RTW attempts and is entitled to past and future income loss, pension loss, non-pecuniary damages, housekeeping replacement and specif…

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Damages
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future care
• Loss of earnings
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

H.D. v. North Vancouver (District)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The District breached its duty of care by failing to maintain clear sightlines at the crosswalk and its feeder stairway such that a reasonably foreseeable risk to child pedestrians existed; the driver also breached the duty to exercise due care by approaching at an excessive speed and failing to keep an adequate lookout; the plaintiff was capable of negligence but contributory negligence was not proven; apportionment of fault is 70% to the District and 30% to the driver; on causation the traumatic brain injury and resultant sequelae (neurocognitive impairment, ADHD symptoms exacerbation, depr…

Source excerpt

• Crosswalk maintenance
• Duty of care
• Contributory negligence
• Apportionment of fault
• Causation
• Cost of future care

Read case analysis

Rounis v. Singh

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the balance of probabilities the accident caused the plaintiff's chronic musculoskeletal and psychological impairments; quantification used replacement labour cost method for past loss during the restaurant period (reduced 50% for contingencies), earnings-based approach for post-sale past loss (25% adjustment), and an earnings-approach valuation for future loss with adjustments for contingencies and assumed limited part-time residual earnings to age 65; housekeeping loss was not awarded separately and future care was assessed on a medically supported, adjusted plan; total damages awarded $…

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past income loss
• Future income loss
• Future care
• Housekeeping capacity

Read case analysis

Cox v. Peabody

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the defendant solely liable for a left-turn collision and awarded the plaintiff $1,087,110.53 for injuries, income loss, future care and special damages.

• Liability
• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

Jasuja v. Monson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the court found Monson negligently sideswiped the Honda and held H&R Transport vicariously liable. The third party, Thapar, was not at fault.

• Sideswipe collision
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Credibility assessment
• Third‑party claim

Read case analysis