Canada Case Law

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

Huether v. Sharpe

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge erred by treating the Township's alleged failures as a 'continuous act or omission'; there was no succession or repetition of actionable conduct after the late 1980s and the Township's conduct had ceased; accordingly the ultimate limitation period under s.15(2) expired (effectively January 1, 2019) and the respondents' claim against the Township is statute barred; additionally the motion judge improperly recognized a novel duty to monitor without conducting the required proximity/foreseeability and policy analysis under Anns/Cooper.

Source excerpt

• Ultimate limitation period s.15(2) limitations act, 2002
• Continuous act or omission s.15(6)(a)
• Duty to monitor open building permits
• Summary judgment
• Transitional provision s.24(5)

Read case analysis

Saloojee v. Gibsons (Town)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique rejette l’appel dans une affaire de responsabilité civile liée à un arbre dangereux dans un parc municipal.

• Standard of care
• Causation
• Expert admissibility and dual role of witnesses
• Core policy immunity
• Danger tree assessment (wdtac)
• Standard-of-care

Read case analysis

Milward v. Cache Creek (Village)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In this summary trial, the court dismissed Ms. Milward’s flood damage claim against Cache Creek because causation was not proven on the expert evidence.

• Negligence
• Nuisance
• Causation
• Culvert design standards
• Expert evidence
• Municipal-liability

Read case analysis

Gill v. Siekham

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Liability trial arising from a crosswalk collision and a rear-end crash. The court apportioned fault among the drivers and parents, and rejected the City’s liability.

• Right of way at crosswalks
• Sightlines and parked vehicles
• Contributory negligence of pedestrians and parents
• Apportionment of liability under negligence act
• Owner vicarious liability (mva s.86)
• Rear‑end collisions and safe following distances

Read case analysis

Crowley v. Halifax (Regional Municipality)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Plaintiff failed to establish on the balance of probabilities a breach of the duty of reasonable care because the court found (1) plaintiff likely slipped on ice but there was evidence of salt applied very near the fall; (2) both the Municipality and Leahey's had comprehensive contractual standards and a regular, adequate regime of inspection, maintenance and monitoring sufficient in the circumstances; therefore no prima facie negligence and defendants did not breach the standard of care.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Inspection and maintenance regimes
• Snow and ice control
• Freeze-thaw risks
• Non-suit motion

Read case analysis

Crowley v. Halifax (Regional Municipality)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Halifax owes the ordinary negligence standard (duty to take reasonable care) for maintenance of a public sidewalk excluded from the Occupiers' Liability Act; whether statutory standard applies to Leahey's is immaterial here; on the non-suit record the plaintiff produced evidence (photographs, temperature records, contract terms, sparse snow logs, testimony of no salt at the site) which, taken as true and given the most favourable inference, was sufficient for a properly instructed jury to infer a breach of the standard of care; therefore the defendants' non-suit motion must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Non-suit
• Anns/cooper test
• Public authority immunity
• Freeze-thaw hazards

Read case analysis

Adamthwaite v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court partly granted the District’s application to file third party notices, allowing claims against pier and water taxi parties, but refusing joinder of settled MVA parties.

• Third party notice
• Contribution and indemnity
• Apportionment
• Settlement release
• Limitation period
• Prejudice

Read case analysis

Tokarz v. Selwyn (Township)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's apportionment of 45% liability to the Township because the Township admitted breach of its Building Code inspection duties, a proper inspection would likely have led to orders that would have prevented the damage, and the trial judge's factual apportionment was within his discretion and supported by authority. However, the Court set aside the quantum of damages because the trial judge relied on an inadequately explained lump-sum estimate (misattributed to the engineer), failed to resolve manifest problems in the costing evidence (including possib…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Apportionment of liability
• Assessment of damages
• Building code inspections
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Stamatopoulos v. Harris

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge correctly applied the Fordham four-part test, legitimately evaluated the totality of evidence and reasonably found the road depression did not constitute a state of non-repair that posed an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver; the judge permissibly considered the driver’s excessive speed and distraction as a separate factual finding that the driver was not an ordinary reasonable driver, and there was no basis to disturb those findings.

Source excerpt

• Section 44 municipal act 2001
• State of repair
• Contributory negligence
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Apportionment of damages

Read case analysis