On a summary judgment motion arising from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an intoxicated nightclub patron, the court held there was a genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the corporate nightclub operator overserved alcohol and thereby incurred commercial host liability under s. 39 of the Liquor Licence Act and the common law.
However, the court dismissed the claims against the related property owner and the individual directors, finding no tenable basis to pierce the corporate veil, no evidence connecting the property owner to the nightclub's operation, and no personal duty of care on the directors to ensure adequate insurance.
The court also held that the directors' insurance-related personal negligence claim was statute-barred.
Claims for disgorgement based on waiver of tort could not stand as an independent cause of action, subject only to any remedy the trial judge might consider against the nightclub operator if liability is proven.
