Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Crown appealed an acquittal for assaulting police. The court held valid consent to enter the shared basement suite was not proved, so the appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Harris’s appeal, holding the dealership remained the owner in possession and impliedly consented to the third-party driver under s. 86.
Catastrophic motor vehicle injury case assessing negligence, vicarious liability under s. 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and damages for a severely injured pedestrian.
Appeal dismissed. The Court held the proposed appeal from the CRT raised mixed fact and law, not a question of law under s. 56.5 of the CRTA.
The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that the vehicle owner was vicariously liable under s. 86(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act based on circumstantial evidence and conduct.
The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge committed material errors in jury instructions and evidence rulings: failing to instruct that implied consent does not exist, permitting the honest but mistaken belief defence to be applied improperly to alleged intercourse and failing to instruct on the reasonable steps precondition and limits on relying on prior sexual activity, and excluding relevant nurse observations — cumulatively these errors might reasonably have had a material bearing on the acquittal.
Source excerpt
Owner (McLaughlin) failed to displace the statutory presumption of consent; even if lack of consent were established, McLaughlin was negligent in leaving keys/vehicle unsecured and publicly announcing their location in circumstances where an intoxicated person with known interest could foreseeably take the vehicle; liability apportioned 85% to driver McLellan and 15% to owner McLaughlin.
Source excerpt
The court found James Basil drove and was liable for the first rollover, rejected implied consent against Joshua Basil, and apportioned fault for the second pedestrian collision.
Court of Appeal upheld summary dismissal of negligence claims and fresh-evidence rulings, but allowed Dr. Sweet’s appeal because resuscitation was consented to, defeating battery and related shock claims.
The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility and factual findings as reasonable and within appellate deference and ruled that implied consent cannot excuse force that is excessive; because the force that caused multiple anterior and posterior rib fractures was outside the range of reasonable parental care, both convictions for assault causing bodily harm were properly upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
