Canada Case Law

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

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

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

Reistad v. La Berge

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either Dr. La Berge or IHA breached the applicable standard of care or that any such breach caused the plaintiff's bowel injury; the court accepted defendant expert evidence that Dr. La Berge met the standard of care and that IHA's MDR practices met the standard; informed consent was given or, objectively, the plaintiff would have proceeded in any event; claim dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Informed consent
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Medical device reprocessing
• Privileging
• Adverse inference

Read case analysis

Kirby v. Turner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendants owed a duty of care to their client sellers (the McNallys) but not to the non-client buyers (the Kirbys) because no proximate relationship was established; the applicable standard of care in October 2020–March 2021 permitted seller identity verification up to completion consistent with FINTRAC/CREA practices then in force, the particular email impersonation fraud was not a known industry risk at the time, the defendants met the standard, causation was not established on the plaintiffs' case, negligent misrepresentation failed for lack of a special relationship and actionable false…

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Vicarious liability
• Identity verification

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

Smith v. Ricksons Enterprises Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Given the exceptional and foreseeable winter conditions, Ricksons' basic system and morning-only plowing/salting were not a reasonable response; Ricksons knew or ought to have known of remanent ice/skim under snow, failed to take further reasonable measures (including additional plowing/sanding/salting or closure), causally causing plaintiff's injury; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; defendant therefore 100% liable.

Source excerpt

• Premises liability
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Breach
• Causation
• Contributory negligence

Read case analysis

Jasuja v. Monson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the court found Monson negligently sideswiped the Honda and held H&R Transport vicariously liable. The third party, Thapar, was not at fault.

• Sideswipe collision
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Credibility assessment
• Third‑party claim

Read case analysis

Shaw Estate v. Handler

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a medical malpractice case, upholding findings that an emergency physician breached the standard of care and caused the patient’s death.

• Standard of care
• Causation
• Delayed diagnosis
• Expert evidence
• Damages
• Medical-malpractice

Read case analysis

Begg v. Provincial Rental Housing Corporation

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The plaintiff’s application to reopen his case was dismissed in a negligence action after a no-evidence motion, with the court finding no fresh evidence and no miscarriage of justice.

• Reopening trial
• No-evidence motion
• Miscarriage of justice
• Admission of new evidence
• Standard of care
• Causation

Read case analysis