Andrew Mearns Elrick

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of contract and punitive damages.

The court found that a binding contract existed between the parties, allowing the plaintiffs to live rent-free on a farm property in exchange for duties, despite the absence of formal signatures and the defendant's later unilateral termination.

The court determined that the defendant breached this contract without grounds.

General damages were awarded to the plaintiffs based on the remaining rent-free period, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed as the defendant's conduct did not constitute an actionable wrong independent of the breach of contract.

The defendant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for injuries the plaintiff sustained after falling at its roller skating rink.

The trial judge found the defendant breached its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act by failing to adequately address a leaking roof, which caused water to pool on the rink floor.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial judge's findings on causation, credibility, treatment of corrected discovery evidence under Rule 31.09, and damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessments of mixed fact and law.

The plaintiff sought damages after suffering a fractured elbow while roller skating at the defendant’s rink.

The evidence established a longstanding problem with water dripping from the roof onto the skating floor, which the occupier addressed only through buckets and pylons rather than repairing the roof or closely monitoring the skating surface.

The court found the occupier breached its duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act by failing to adequately manage the known hazard and by failing to properly monitor the skating floor.

The plaintiff’s fall was found to have been caused by striking a displaced pylon and the presence of water on the floor.

The court rejected defences of voluntary assumption of risk but found the plaintiff contributorily negligent for failing to notice a visible pylon while skating backwards.