Canada Case Law

Valley Traffic Systems Inc. v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Because the trial judge found and the Court of Appeal upheld that the three defendants engaged in a common design, hid payments behind a sham profit‑sharing agreement, and were equally complicit in a coordinated, malicious defamation campaign, there is no basis to differentiate their degrees of fault; accordingly Hanna must contribute and indemnify one third of the amounts paid (equal apportionment).

Source excerpt

• Common design
• Apportionment of liability
• Default judgment
• Assessment of damages
• Indemnity and contribution
• Aggravated and punitive damages

Read case analysis

National Steel Car Limited v. Hamilton (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an equal apportionment of damages, punitive damages, and most of an injunction in a flooding dispute, varying only one injunction clause.

• Nuisance
• Negligence
• Strict liability (rylands v. fletcher)
• Apportionment of liability
• Mitigation of damages
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis

Basmadjian v. Kovac

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the pedestrian had the right of way and the driver breached s. 179(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Liability was reapportioned 70/30.

• Right of way
• Apportionment of liability
• Jury instructions
• Section 179(3) motor vehicle act
• Misdirection
• Right-of-way

Read case analysis

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

Canada (the King) v. Stonechild

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

Majority: The certification judge erred in the preferability analysis by failing to require the plaintiffs to demonstrate concretely how a single Federal Court class proceeding would fairly and efficiently adjudicate claims that depend on evidence and participation of provincial authorities that the Federal Court may not be able to compel; given jurisdictional and evidentiary limitations and the multitude of individualized issues across provincial regimes, the proposed Federal Court class action is not the preferable procedure and certification must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Preferability of procedure
• Discovery and production
• Jurisdiction
• Interjurisdictional immunity
• Duty of care

Read case analysis

Bains v. Zhao Estate

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Liability-only trial arising from a fatal Highway 99 collision. The court found the deceased pedestrian solely liable and held the plaintiff driver was not negligent.

• Duty of care
• Right of way
• Evasive action
• Apportionment of liability
• Statutory duties under the motor vehicle act
• Motor-vehicle-negligence

Read case analysis

Sauve v. McComish

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial decision on a motorcycle-left-turn collision found both drivers negligent and apportioned liability 50/50, with damages awarded and then reduced accordingly.

• Negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Apportionment of liability
• Motor vehicle act compliance (yellow light)
• Mitigation of damages
• Non-pecuniary damages

Read case analysis

Knitter v. Dennis

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Liability for a highway rear-end collision was apportioned 90% to Mr. Knitter and 10% to Mr. Dennis after the court found Knitter illegally passed and then struck a deer.

• Rear-end collision
• Overtaking across solid centre line
• Wildlife collision
• Apportionment of liability
• Black box (event data recorder) evidence
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

Lata v. Pierson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Joined liability trials over a bus braking incident. The court found both the unidentified sedan driver and bus driver at fault and apportioned liability 70/30 against the sedan defendants.

• Duty of care
• Standard of care for public carriers
• Mva offences (turning, passing, following)
• Apportionment of liability
• Nominal defendant under insurance (vehicle) act
• Expert collision reconstruction

Read case analysis

Bennett v. Doyle

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Both parties were negligent: the farm owner breached the ordinary standard of care by failing to prevent recurring cattle escapes despite precautions, and the driver was driving imprudently (excessive speed/inattention) at night through a curve and failed to heed warning signs; applying the Contributory Negligence Act the Court apportioned responsibility 60% to the claimant/driver and 40% to the defendant/farm owner, resulting in a net award to claimant of $2,169.60 plus awarded interest and proportional costs as specified.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Apportionment of liability
• Damages valuation
• Contributory negligence
• Fencing obligations

Read case analysis