Canada Case Law

Cadieux v. Cadieux

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err in approving the Pierringer agreement because the alleged prejudice to non‑settling defendants was speculative and did not outweigh the strong public policy favoring settlement; the Negligence Act and existing jurisprudence preclude a proportionate reduction or equitable restitution that would undermine the purpose of Pierringer agreements.

Source excerpt

• Pierringer agreement
• Negligence act s.1
• Contribution and indemnity
• Apportionment of liability
• Settlement approval
• Costs

Read case analysis

Randhawa v. Evans

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal varied a motor vehicle liability apportionment, finding the left-turning driver more blameworthy and reallocating fault 60/40.

• Apportionment of fault
• Right of way
• Left turn
• Passing on right
• Negligence act s.1
• Motor vehicle act ss.158 and 174

Read case analysis

Misko v. John Doe

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because Liberty Mutual, given the plaintiff's clear limitation of his claim to damages attributable to the second accident, will only be liable for its degree of responsibility for those damages under the Negligence Act; therefore Liberty Mutual has no present entitlement to contribution or indemnity from De Bruin that would justify a third party claim under Rule 29.01 or s.5 and the third party claim was properly struck to protect settlement finality and apply proper apportionment rules.

Source excerpt

• Third party claim
• Negligence act s.1
• Unidentified motorist insurance
• Release and settlement
• Contribution and indemnity
• Assessment of damages

Read case analysis

Diamond Contracting Ltd. v. MacDearmid

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The proposed amendments disclosed no tenable cause of action because lawyers owe duties to their own clients only and it was not reasonably foreseeable that clients represented by counsel would rely on representations by opposing counsel; Windstar is distinguishable on its facts and s.1 of the Negligence Act does not create a cause of action, therefore leave to amend was properly denied.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Abuse of process
• Amendment of statement of claim
• Negligence act s.1
• Summary judgment

Read case analysis

San Jose Mines Ltd. et al. v. Coutu et al.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application to strike third party notices dismissed. The court held the notices raised triable issues of contribution, indemnity, authority, and duty to warn.

• Third party notice
• Contribution and indemnity
• Negligence act s.1
• Duty to warn
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Striking pleadings

Read case analysis

Jordison v. Grabham

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal from a pedestrian-vehicle negligence case. The Court of Appeal upheld a 75/25 apportionment against the pedestrian and dismissed the crosswalk argument.

• Apportionment of liability
• Definition of crosswalk
• Right of way
• Negligence act s.1
• Motor vehicle act ss.119/176/179/180
• Crosswalk-definition

Read case analysis