Canada Case Law

Peterson v. Anderson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court exercised discretion to award lump sum costs against Ashton Anderson in the amount of $42,000 (inclusive of disbursements and HST) because Anderson was found solely liable for the intentional tort and the plaintiff made a substantial contribution to the successful result; the tariff was adjusted downward to reflect that most trial time related to the separate occupiers' liability claim against Kenney and to account for the plaintiff's multiple counsel; a Bullock/Sanderson order was refused because it was not reasonable to keep Kenney in the action after discoveries and the causes of…

Source excerpt

• Costs awards
• Social host liability
• Bullock/sanderson orders
• Lump sum costs
• Rule of thumb rejected
• Contributory negligence

Read case analysis

MacGillivray v. Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

DCI: Summary judgment granted and claim dismissed because the claim against DCI was filed outside the two-year limitation period and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate discoverability delayed commencement or that DCI had sufficient knowledge of the added claim within the limitation period plus time for service under s.22(b) of the LAA. Choice: Summary judgment denied because genuine issues of material fact and mixed fact-and-law remain about whether Choice met its statutory standard of care under the Occupier's Liability Act and whether Choice discharged that duty by contracting DCI, requiri…

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment on evidence
• Discoverability
• Statute of limitations
• Duty of care of occupiers
• Independent contractor liability
• Inspection and maintenance obligations

Read case analysis

Marklinger v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trail is a recreational trail (LOD-1) under the OLA and WDTAC; defendant assessor's March 2018 visual inspection was reasonable under WDTAC and the assessor legitimately concluded the Incident Tree was not a danger (leaning away); absence of contemporaneous documentation of a tree assessed as non-dangerous does not constitute reckless disregard under s.3(3)(b) OLA; core-policy immunity bars challenges to resource allocation but does not shield operational failures; on balance plaintiffs did not prove defendants acted with reckless disregard, therefore defendants not liable.

Source excerpt

• Reckless disregard
• Duty of care
• Danger tree assessment
• Wdtac implementation
• Core policy immunity
• Record keeping/documentation

Read case analysis

S.T.H. v. Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendants admitted liability for assault, battery, false arrest and false imprisonment; on the evidence the guards used excessive and unjustified force causing compensable physical injury and chronic PTSD; plaintiff did not fail to mitigate; aggravated harm is reflected in an augmented non-pecuniary award; Paladin's training and investigatory failures constituted conduct referable to the employer warranting punitive damages against Paladin alone; damages quantified accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Assault and battery
• False arrest
• False imprisonment
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages
• Causation

Read case analysis

Begg v. Provincial Rental Housing Corporation

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

By the end of October 2025 the aggregate of discovery and expert evidence exposed fundamental gaps in the plaintiff's case (notably absence of evidence to establish the applicable standard of care and causation) such that the March 6, 2023 walk-away offer ought reasonably to have been accepted by that time; therefore defendants are entitled to Scale B costs to October 31, 2025 and double costs thereafter, plus costs of the application.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• No-evidence motion
• Offer to settle
• Double costs
• Standard of care
• Causation

Read case analysis

Riggs v. 0838782 B.C. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that ice existed on the walkway and caused her fall; expert evidence of Dr. Weaver was preferred and photographs and witness inconsistencies corroborated absence of ice; claim therefore dismissed for lack of causation under the OLA.

Source excerpt

• Slip and fall
• Causation
• Inspection and maintenance systems
• Expert evidence
• Credibility assessment
• Damages

Read case analysis

Jansen v. J.M. Reynolds Pharmacy Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The occupier failed to demonstrate a reasonable regime of inspection and maintenance for the planter bed adjacent to the pharmacy entrance, resulting in an unmarked lip of about one inch that foreseeably caused the plaintiff's fall; defendant liable but plaintiff contributorily negligent to 25%, so defendant bears 75% of liability.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Inspection and maintenance regime
• Contributory negligence
• Subsequent remedial measures
• Witness credibility and expert opinion

Read case analysis

Pederson v. Forget

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict for the defendants in a slip-and-fall negligence action, finding no reversible error in excluding one expert test.

• Expert admissibility
• Slip and fall
• Tampering/interference
• Miscarriage of justice
• Jury instruction
• Costs

Read case analysis

Martelli v. Cressey Development Corporation

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Plaintiff's action was dismissed because he failed, despite ample time and express warnings, to obtain necessary medical expert evidence establishing causation between alleged mould exposure and his respiratory condition; without that evidence causation could not be proved on the record and it was fair and just to proceed with the summary trial and dismiss the claim with costs to defendants.

Source excerpt

• Summary trial
• Causation
• Expert evidence
• Mould/mold exposure
• Costs

Read case analysis

Linders v. Ordinelli

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he slipped on ice or that the defendants breached their duty; the defendants demonstrated a reasonable inspection and winter maintenance regime and the claim is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Inspection and maintenance
• Weather evidence
• Contributory negligence

Read case analysis