2 total
A prospective employer did not breach its duty of care when a job applicant injured her back demonstrating her ability to lift a trailer.
The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after Ms. Armstrong, a prospective employee, suffered an L4 vertebrae burst fracture while demonstrating her ability to hitch a U-Haul trailer during a job interview at the defendants' garage.
The trial proceeded on the issue of liability only.
The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to Ms. Armstrong, both as occupiers of the premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and as a quasi-employer.
However, the court concluded that the defendants did not breach the standard of care, as the injury was not reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, including Ms. Armstrong's assurances of her lifting capabilities and the lack of evidence of industry standards or obvious negligence.
The action was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; condominium corporation's action for latent structural defects not barred by limitation period or res judicata.
The appellants, including the builder and contractors, appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent condominium corporation for structural deficiencies in a block back-up wall.
The appellants argued the action was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and the six-year limitation period, and challenged the findings of breach of warranty and negligence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the structural defects could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and that the warranty clause, interpreted contra proferentem, did not limit claims to one year.
The damages assessment was also upheld.
