C. Kirk Boggs

Two police officers brought a civil action against their police services board, chief, deputy chief, and another officer, alleging unfair treatment, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from disciplinary actions taken against them.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the Police Services Act and the applicable collective agreement form a complete code for police discipline, precluding civil actions for disputes whose essential character relates to discipline.

The plaintiff was involved in multiple motor vehicle accidents between 1989 and 1997, resulting in a chronic pain disorder and total disability.

Three separate actions were tried together.

The trial judge discharged the jury due to the complexity of the medical evidence, overlapping injuries, and different statutory regimes.

The trial judge assessed damages globally and apportioned liability among the defendants, holding the defendants from the 1989 accident solely responsible for past and future income loss and future care costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to discharge the jury, the apportionment of damages, or the quantum of damages awarded.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They argued that the respondents' notice under s. 284(5) of the Municipal Act was invalid as a matter of law because it contained a wrong address.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sufficiency of the notice raises a factual issue that is not appropriately determined on a Rule 21 motion.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding liability for a fire.

The trial judge found that the appellant's failure to hook up a high limit switch and failure to warn the respondent of installation problems were material causes of the fire.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis of causation or apportionment of liability and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $15,000 to the respondent.