3 total
Liability for apartment fire reapportioned among tenant, City, and owners; damages and substantial indemnity costs largely upheld.
The appellants appealed the trial judge's apportionment of liability, assessment of damages, and costs awards arising from a tragic apartment fire that caused severe smoke inhalation injuries to the respondents.
The trial judge had apportioned liability 10% to the tenant who started the fire, 20% to the City for failing to enforce building codes regarding self-closing doors, and 70% to the building owners/managers.
The Court of Appeal reapportioned liability to 20% for the tenant, 35% for the City, and 45% for the owners, finding the trial judge underestimated the tenant's and City's roles.
The Court upheld the general damages and future loss of income awards, as well as the future care costs based on the injured respondent's choice to live independently.
The Court also largely upheld the substantial indemnity costs award and premium against the owners due to their failure to admit liability, but varied the costs related to a separate medical malpractice action and an inquest.
Liability for apartment fire reapportioned on appeal; substantial damages and costs premium largely upheld.
The plaintiffs suffered severe injuries from smoke inhalation during an apartment fire.
The trial judge found the tenant who started the fire, the building owner, and the City liable, apportioning fault at 10%, 70%, and 20% respectively.
The trial judge also awarded substantial damages and substantial indemnity costs with a premium.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reapportioned liability to 20% for the tenant, 45% for the owner, and 35% for the City, finding the trial judge underestimated the tenant's and City's roles.
The damage awards were upheld as reasonable.
The costs award was largely upheld, except for costs related to a separate medical malpractice action and an inquest.
Conditional sentence upheld for child pornography offences.
The Crown sought leave to appeal a conditional sentence imposed for three counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography, arguing the sentencing judge misapprehended the offence circumstances, failed to grasp the nature of the offences, and gave insufficient weight to denunciation and general deterrence.
The court held the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant facts, was entitled to accept the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence that the respondent was not a pedophile, and properly relied on a closely analogous prior authority.
The court reaffirmed that, for certain offenders, a strict conditional sentence can adequately serve denunciation and general deterrence in child pornography cases.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.
