Canada Case Law

Ramrup v. Rayner

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge did not err in exercising his discretion to convert the action to a class proceeding or in granting leave to amend the NOCC; however it was premature and an error in principle to fix the commencement date for tolling under s.38.1 of the CPA at the conversion stage without a fuller record, so the order selecting October 3, 2022 was vacated and the respondent was granted leave to file a second further amended notice of civil claim.

Source excerpt

• Conversion to class proceeding
• Certification
• Limitation period tolling
• Amendment of pleadings
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

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

Xu v. Ndax Canada

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed: trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and not palpably overriding; Ndax met any applicable standard of care by providing multiple warnings, personal inquiries and independent risk analysis, and appellant failed to prove causation; fresh evidence excluded for lack of due diligence and lack of material bearing on decisive issues.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Fresh evidence (palmer criteria)
• Trial fairness and interpreter rights
• Credibility findings

Read case analysis

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

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

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

Salamanca v. Khela

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendants liable for injuries sustained in the rear-end collision; the Accident caused chronic grade II soft tissue injuries to the neck, upper torso and right shoulder, chronic migrainous headaches, sleep disruption and major depressive disorder (moderate). Pre-existing lower back pathology and the 2023 disc herniation/surgery were found not to be caused by the Accident. Pleadings were sufficiently broad to permit psychiatric claim. Non-pecuniary damages awarded $190,000; no past income loss awarded; loss of future earning capacity awarded $240,000 (three years at $80,000/year under the cap…

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Psychiatric injury
• Pleadings sufficiency

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

Rigio v. Scott

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found some defendants liable and the plaintiff contributorily negligent; the litigated accidents materially aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing mental health and soft tissue injuries through 2015 and possibly into 2016 but did not cause the major psychiatric breakdown in 2020, which was the result of intervening non-tortious events and drug use. Physical and psychiatric injuries from the litigated accidents are treated as indivisible. Apportionment of blameworthiness across parties and plaintiff results in 22.5% attribution to the plaintiff; specific apportionments were made per…

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Apportionment
• Contributory negligence
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Medical evidence and credibility

Read case analysis