3 total
Unopposed motion for simultaneous trial declined due to deficient motion materials and missing pleadings.
The defendant brought an unopposed motion in writing seeking an order for the simultaneous or sequential trial of the main action, a third-party claim, and a related action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.
The court declined to sign the draft order due to several deficiencies in the motion materials, including the failure to provide all relevant pleadings, the lack of information regarding the mode of trial (jury or non-jury), and the failure to file proper notices of non-opposition from the responding parties.
The court provided directions for the defendant to file supplementary materials to correct these deficiencies.
Motion to compel defendant mother's presence inside infant plaintiff's medical examinations denied; separate interviews permitted.
The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.
The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.
The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.
However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.
Appeal dismissed; commercial host liability under the Liquor Licence Act requires reasonable foreseeability of harm.
The appellant suffered a severe brain injury after being assaulted by an intoxicated patron outside a pub.
He sued the patron and the pub, relying on the civil liability provisions of s. 39 of the Liquor Licence Act.
At trial, the jury found the patron 100% responsible and dismissed the claim against the pub.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing them that liability under s. 39 requires reasonable foreseeability of harm.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 39 requires a risk assessment and is breached only if a patron is over-served to the point where it is reasonably foreseeable they might injure another person.