Canada Case Law

Glanz v. Hooker

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judge found plaintiff's accounts internally inconsistent and inherently implausible, and materially contradicted by credible third‑party witnesses (particularly Mendel and Boyetchko) who described prolonged consensual interactions; on balance of probabilities first touching was consensual and second violent battery was not proven; further, even assuming liability, medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged second battery caused the claimed concussion/epilepsy; claim therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Battery
• Sexual battery
• Consent
• Causation
• Credibility and reliability

Read case analysis

R. v. Ripley

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed an aggravated assault appeal, holding the trial reasons did not wrongly use disclosure or trial presence against the accused’s credibility.

• Aggravated assault
• Credibility assessment
• Right to disclosure
• Right to be present at trial
• Tailoring inference
• Curative proviso

Read case analysis

Mariotto v. Rowntree Estate

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

A British Columbia court found a minor rear-end collision was a catalyst for the plaintiff’s genuine but multifactorial decline, awarding damages after a 75% contingency discount.

• Causation
• Damages assessment
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earnings
• Future care
• Pre-existing conditions

Read case analysis

Bown v. Skogheim

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the defendant fully liable for a motor vehicle collision and awarded damages for soft tissue injuries, chronic pain and income loss, but not for later psoriatic arthritis.

• Liability
• Causation
• Damages quantification
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care costs

Read case analysis

Boyce v. Waterloo Insurance Company

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The jury notice was struck because, applying Rule 52.02(5)(b) and the factors in Cyr, justice required a judge-alone trial: the case requires multiple expert medical and technical opinions and complex evidentiary rulings, the self-represented plaintiff has demonstrated inability to conduct an effective jury trial and will require extensive court assistance that could prejudice the defendants, so a judge-alone trial best serves the interests of justice.

Source excerpt

• Jury trial
• Striking jury notice
• Self-represented litigant
• Expert medical evidence
• Delay

Read case analysis

M.F. v. Milovic

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Board’s finding of treatment incapacity was supported by contemporaneous clinical presentation and multiple corroborating psychiatric opinions, and the appellate court must not disturb the Board’s factual and credibility conclusions absent error; therefore the finding stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Capacity to consent
• Treatment incapacity
• Involuntary admission
• Expert medical evidence
• Judicial deference to administrative findings

Read case analysis

Burnett v. Granneman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rear-end collision personal injury judgment awarding damages for soft tissue injuries, headaches, and earning-capacity and care costs after the court found partial ongoing symptoms.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Cost of future care
• Causation
• Credibility assessment
• Expert medical evidence

Read case analysis

Dai v. Grose

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rear-end motor vehicle collision claim in which liability was admitted, but the court assessed causation, memory, tinnitus, visual symptoms and income loss before awarding damages.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past income loss
• Future income loss
• Costs of future care
• Causation
• Expert medical evidence

Read case analysis

Paleshnuik v. Dulay

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The plaintiff was awarded $663,270 after a rear-end collision caused persistent concussion-related, neurological, psychological and pain symptoms, plus income and future-care losses.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of income-earning capacity
• Loss of housekeeping capacity
• Cost of future care
• Credibility assessment
• Causation

Read case analysis

Foran v. Malek

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court granted consolidation because all three actions arise from the same accident, the cause, nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting disability are common and central to each claim, there is substantial overlap in expert medical evidence and witnesses, and consolidation best serves proportionality, avoids duplication and the real risk of inconsistent findings, making the proceedings inextricably intertwined and consolidation just and convenient.

Source excerpt

• Consolidation
• Section b accident benefits
• Sef 44 endorsement
• Causation
• Expert medical evidence
• Inextricably intertwined proceedings

Read case analysis