Jillian Carrington

The appellant appealed a jury verdict from a motor vehicle accident trial where the jury found she suffered injuries but not a loss of competitive advantage.

The appellant argued the jury's answers were irreconcilable and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict, finding it was supported by evidence and met the high standard of appellate review for jury findings.

The plaintiff sought damages for a slip and fall incident on the steps of a store during snowy winter conditions.

The court found the defendant, Bayview Summit Development Limited, 75% liable for failing to maintain a sufficient system of inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of the premises.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and not using the handrail.

The decision emphasizes the occupier's duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the standard of reasonableness, not perfection.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a minor traumatic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law regarding the temporal analysis of the GOS-E, by discrediting his neuropsychologist's report because an occupational therapist conducted the GOS-E interview, and by failing to weigh the respondent's occupational therapist's observations.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator affirmed that a flexible approach to the timing of the GOS-E is appropriate, that the GOS-E interview must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist, and that occupational therapists cannot opine on whether impairments are caused by a brain injury versus other injuries.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the applicant's traumatic brain injury resulted in a Severe Disability or Lower Moderate Disability under the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E).

The Tribunal found that the GOS-E assessment must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist, not an occupational therapist, and must isolate the effects of the brain injury from other physical or psychological injuries.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's neuropsychologist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained only a mild traumatic brain injury and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form 1) to be reasonable and necessary, entitling her to attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'but for' test for causation, improperly admitting late evidence, failing to address whether the benefits were incurred, and misapplying the law regarding catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the 'but for' test was implicitly applied, the late evidence was relevant and prejudice was remedied, the issue of whether benefits were incurred was not in dispute, and the catastrophic designation was merely provided for context.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently deemed catastrophically impaired due to psychological impairments.

She sought statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis and attendant care.

The respondent denied the medical cannabis and approved a lower amount for attendant care, arguing the applicant's pre-existing conditions and credibility issues undermined her claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded that the medical cannabis was reasonable and necessary to improve functionality and decrease psychoactivity.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's Form 1 for attendant care reasonable and necessary, awarding the benefit up to the $6,000 monthly maximum for catastrophically impaired persons.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a severe assault on the plaintiff inmate by three other inmates at Millhaven Institution.

The court found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) breached its duty of care by placing the non-violent plaintiff with highly violent offenders, failing to enforce cell door protocols, ignoring the plaintiff's emergency cell alarm, and lacking adequate video surveillance.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability because the evidence overwhelmingly established CSC's negligence and causation.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on liability, with damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The plaintiff sought leave to conduct an examination for discovery of the defendant after setting the action down for trial, which requires leave under Rule 48.04(1).

The court addressed conflicting judicial approaches regarding the test for granting such leave, ultimately preferring the broader "interest of justice" test over the "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" test.

Despite some plaintiff delay and an inaccurate certification form, leave was granted as there was no prejudice to the defendant, and discovery is a crucial step in litigation.

Dellan McMorris was found guilty of first-degree murder in the 2012 killing of Delano Coombs.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the planned and deliberate murder, the profound impact on the victim's family, and the defendant's background, including his prior criminal record and efforts to complete high school while in custody.

The mandatory sentence for first-degree murder is life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and the societal abhorrence for gun violence.

The defendant, Dellan McMorris, brought a motion for a directed verdict in a first-degree murder trial, arguing insufficient evidence regarding his identity as a perpetrator.

The court reviewed the legal framework for directed verdicts, which requires determining if a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown, including telephone records, witness testimony, and DNA evidence on a discarded hoodie.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found that a reasonable jury could infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown applied to admit an edited audiorecording and transcript of a co-accused's (Jerome Bent) guilty plea to first-degree murder as substantive evidence in the defendant Dellan McMorris's trial.

Bent, who was expected to refuse to testify, had pleaded guilty to the murder of Delano Coombs.

The defence argued that a co-accused's plea is inadmissible except for credibility.

The court, applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, found the plea and edited portions of the agreed statement of facts to meet the threshold reliability and necessity requirements, allowing their admission as substantive evidence against McMorris, but only to prove Bent's culpability, not to directly implicate McMorris.

This ruling addresses a voir dire to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a statement made by the defendant, Dellan McMorris, to police regarding his cell phone number.

The statement was obtained during a traffic stop where McMorris was a passenger.

The Crown sought to admit this statement in a murder trial.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary, alleging a police threat to charge McMorris with possession of a stolen vehicle if he did not cooperate, and also sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter for alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10.

The court found the police officers' notes incomplete and their testimony less reliable, while the defendant's testimony regarding the threat was sufficiently credible to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

Consequently, the statement was deemed inadmissible.

The court declined to rule on the Charter application.

This ruling addresses two applications concerning the admissibility of hearsay declarations by Jerome Bent in the murder trial of Dellan McMorris.

The defence sought to admit Bent's July 2012 declarations, asserting Bent was the principal shooter and McMorris merely present.

The Crown sought to admit Bent's April 2013 declarations, which implicated McMorris.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither set of declarations met the threshold reliability requirement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court highlighted issues with inconsistent statements, lack of contemporaneous recording, Graham's motivation and credibility, and the absence of independent confirmatory evidence directly implicating McMorris.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Delano Coombs.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to admit a 3.5-hour audio-recorded statement made by Jerome Bent, a separately charged co-accused, to an undercover police agent (Jermaine Graham) for the truth of its contents.

The defence sought to admit a separate, unrecorded statement by Bent regarding a hoody he allegedly dropped at the scene.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay evidence under the necessity and reliability test.

While necessity was conceded, the court found that the Crown's proposed hearsay evidence did not meet the threshold reliability standard due to multiple frailties, including: the declarant's initial untruthfulness about the accused's involvement, leading and suggestive questioning by the undercover agent, minimal corroborating evidence directly linking the accused to the murder, and the absence of visual cues critical to assessing credibility.

The defence application regarding the hoody statement was similarly rejected despite substantial corroborating evidence, as the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability beyond the corroboration.

Both applications were dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter motion under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a suspected cannabis grow operation.

They alleged the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements and inadequate disclosure and sought leave to cross-examine the affiant officer under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that the accused had standing to bring the application as residents of the searched property and permitted limited cross‑examination concerning alleged discrepancies in the officer’s description of another officer’s observations.

After reviewing the evidence and the affidavit supporting the warrant, the court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrant.

The search warrant was found to be valid and the evidence admissible.