Doris I. Wilson

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident after leaving a dinner theatre.

The driver, her brother, had been drinking heavily at the theatre but showed no visible signs of intoxication.

The plaintiff and another passenger were sober and knew how much the driver had consumed, yet allowed him to drive.

The plaintiff sued the commercial host for negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a commercial host owes a duty of care to third parties who might be injured by an intoxicated patron, the host did not breach its standard of care in this case.

It was reasonable for the host to assume that the sober passengers would ensure the intoxicated patron did not drive.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove that any intervention by the host would have changed her decision to let her brother drive.

The appellant and respondent divorced after a 29-year marriage.

The respondent was awarded indefinite spousal maintenance and a share of the appellant's pension based only on his contributions.

When the appellant was forced into early retirement, his sole income became his pension.

He applied to vary the maintenance order, arguing that paying support from his pension constituted 'double dipping' since it had already been divided as property.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no double recovery because the original pension division was a rough estimate that did not account for the employer's contributions or future value.

The Court upheld the chambers judge's decision to reduce, rather than terminate, the support payments.