Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Negligence 2026 BCCA 182

Salerno v. Sahota

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed in part: the trial judge erred by not giving a specific limiting instruction that the hearsay medical note referring to fibromyalgia could not be used for the truth of its contents, but that error did not occasion a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice on the record. The trial judge also erred in law by instructing the jury that the capital asset approach 'usually' involves awarding one or more years of pre-accident income; that misdirection was prejudicial to the appellant's case on loss of future earning capacity. The jury award of $50,000 for future loss of ea…

Source excerpt

  • Hearsay and limiting instructions
  • Capital asset approach to economic loss
  • Loss of future earning capacity
  • Jury instructions
  • Remittal for judge-alone reassessment
Read case analysis
Limitation of actions 2026 NSSC 125

Watt v. SDLP Land Holdings Limited

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Claims against both proposed defendants were presumptively statute‑barred; McDonald’s claim could not be saved under s.22(b) because plaintiff had constructive knowledge (at latest by the incident and certainly by 2020) before the limitation-plus‑service period elapsed and McDonald’s lacked timely notice of the legal claim; Jus‑Mar could be added because it had sufficient knowledge of the claim within the relevant period and the responding party did not prove non‑compensable prejudice that would defeat relief under s.22(b).

Source excerpt

  • Discoverability
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Section 22 limitation of actions act
  • Prejudice in limitation context
  • Designation of managers
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCSC 735

Maan v. Todd

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendant liable for rear-end collision; on balance the court preferred the plaintiff's neurosurgical and psychiatric experts (Drs. Heran and Waisman) over the defendant's experts and found the MVA caused chronic left-sided neck/shoulder pain (including probable TOS and ulnar neuropathy/double crush), cervicogenic headaches and materially exacerbated pre-existing PTSD and major depressive disorder leading to somatic symptom disorder; plaintiff entitled to damages assessed by a capital approach for loss of earning capacity with contingencies and specific awards for non-pecuniary loss, housekee…

Source excerpt

  • Liability
  • Causation
  • Non-pecuniary damages
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Cost of future care
  • Credibility and expert evidence
Read case analysis
Torts 2026 BCSC 730

Zakrzewska v. Klein

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court accepted liability and, on the balance of probabilities, found the Accident caused chronic myofascial pain, persistent post‑traumatic headaches, concussion syndrome with symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury, moderate PTSD and major depressive disorder, and aggravated pre‑existing episodic migraines; the plaintiff's credibility was generally accepted and supported by lay and expert evidence; the defendant proved some mitigation failure but not to the extent argued, resulting in a 20% discount for mitigation; damages were assessed on accepted principles (including use of minimum wa…

Source excerpt

  • Non-pecuniary damages
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Cost of future care
  • Credibility and reliability
  • Concussion/mild traumatic brain injury
  • Psychiatric injury (ptsd, major depressive disorder)
Read case analysis
Civil litigation 2026 BCSC 724

Herzig v. Golowko

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The plaintiff failed to prove undue hardship or the necessity of additional expert evidence: financial disclosure was insufficient to establish inability to pay or the real sacrifice required, and the proposed non-orthopaedic experts were premature and unnecessary given that recommended treatment (physiotherapy) and diagnostic imaging (MRA) had not been undertaken and the orthopaedic opinion indicated ongoing ability to work and no progressive deterioration; therefore the DEER exclusion and leave under Evidence Act s.12.1 are denied.

Source excerpt

  • Disbursements and expert evidence regulation (deer)
  • Evidence act s.12.1 leave for additional experts
  • Undue hardship test
  • Expert evidence limits
  • Future wage loss valuation
  • Proportionality and 'skin in the game'
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCSC 689

McCafferty v. Jim Pattison Industries Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court accepted plaintiff's credibility and reliability overall, found MVA1 caused MTBI (resolved), chronic soft tissue injuries to neck/right upper back/shoulder, cervicogenic chronic headaches, disrupted sleep and mood/personality changes; MVA2 produced only brief aggravation; plaintiff unlikely to have significant lasting improvement; plaintiff failed to prove past loss of earning capacity due to insufficient evidence of lost side-work opportunities, but proved a real and substantial possibility of future pecuniary loss due to loss of capacity and the changed employment circumstances; capit…

Source excerpt

  • Non-pecuniary damages
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Future care costs
  • Causation
  • Credibility and clinical records
Read case analysis
Tort law 2026 BCSC 697

Glanz v. Hooker

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judge found plaintiff's accounts internally inconsistent and inherently implausible, and materially contradicted by credible third‑party witnesses (particularly Mendel and Boyetchko) who described prolonged consensual interactions; on balance of probabilities first touching was consensual and second violent battery was not proven; further, even assuming liability, medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged second battery caused the claimed concussion/epilepsy; claim therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Sexual battery
  • Consent
  • Causation
  • Credibility and reliability
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCCA 152

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
Tort 2026 NSSC 112

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
Tort 2026 BCSC 683

Bahlak v. Veerman

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The jury's awards, including zero past income loss alongside substantial awards for other heads, were reconcilable on the evidence; Rule 12-6(7) was therefore not engaged and no retrial was ordered; judgment is to be entered in accordance with the jury verdict, subject to a possible s.83 Insurance (Vehicle) Act application by the defendants within 30 days.

Source excerpt

  • Damages
  • Jury verdict
  • Retrial
  • Inconsistency of verdict
  • Entry of judgment
  • Rule 12-6 sccr
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.