Canada Case Law

Peterson v. Anderson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court exercised discretion to award lump sum costs against Ashton Anderson in the amount of $42,000 (inclusive of disbursements and HST) because Anderson was found solely liable for the intentional tort and the plaintiff made a substantial contribution to the successful result; the tariff was adjusted downward to reflect that most trial time related to the separate occupiers' liability claim against Kenney and to account for the plaintiff's multiple counsel; a Bullock/Sanderson order was refused because it was not reasonable to keep Kenney in the action after discoveries and the causes of…

Source excerpt

• Costs awards
• Social host liability
• Bullock/sanderson orders
• Lump sum costs
• Rule of thumb rejected
• Contributory negligence

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

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

Blizzard Uranium Corp v. Nathanson, Schacter & Thompson LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court found defendants liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty: the Amended SOC contained a factual error (B Claims misdescribed as held in trust for Boss) caused by defendant counsel's failure to verify and to account for prior file materials; that error foreseeably gave the beneficial owner leverage, caused settlement complications and payments; causation established; but plaintiffs bore 50% contributory negligence for failures to detect and mitigate; court applied a $2,000,000 'but for' deduction (likely value that would have been paid for B Claims absent the error), reduced rec…

Source excerpt

• Solicitor negligence
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Contributory negligence
• Causation
• Damages
• Settlement law

Read case analysis

Jansen v. J.M. Reynolds Pharmacy Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The occupier failed to demonstrate a reasonable regime of inspection and maintenance for the planter bed adjacent to the pharmacy entrance, resulting in an unmarked lip of about one inch that foreseeably caused the plaintiff's fall; defendant liable but plaintiff contributorily negligent to 25%, so defendant bears 75% of liability.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Inspection and maintenance regime
• Contributory negligence
• Subsequent remedial measures
• Witness credibility and expert opinion

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

H.D. v. North Vancouver (District)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The District breached its duty of care by failing to maintain clear sightlines at the crosswalk and its feeder stairway such that a reasonably foreseeable risk to child pedestrians existed; the driver also breached the duty to exercise due care by approaching at an excessive speed and failing to keep an adequate lookout; the plaintiff was capable of negligence but contributory negligence was not proven; apportionment of fault is 70% to the District and 30% to the driver; on causation the traumatic brain injury and resultant sequelae (neurocognitive impairment, ADHD symptoms exacerbation, depr…

Source excerpt

• Crosswalk maintenance
• Duty of care
• Contributory negligence
• Apportionment of fault
• Causation
• Cost of future care

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

Z.H. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Infrastructure)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed certification of a landslide negligence class action, finding no analogous Just duty and significant individual and insurance issues.

• Duty of care (just category)
• Proximity
• Deactivation of resource roads
• Insurance (vehicle) act coverage
• Certification requirements under cpa s.4
• Conflict of interest among class members

Read case analysis