Christine Snow

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of two appeals by the appellant, African Lion Safari & Game Farm Ltd. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements to the Cowles and Balac respondents, to be allocated between them.

An additional $20,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements was awarded to Jennifer Anne Cowles for her separate representation.

The plaintiff was involved in multiple motor vehicle accidents between 1989 and 1997, resulting in a chronic pain disorder and total disability.

Three separate actions were tried together.

The trial judge discharged the jury due to the complexity of the medical evidence, overlapping injuries, and different statutory regimes.

The trial judge assessed damages globally and apportioned liability among the defendants, holding the defendants from the 1989 accident solely responsible for past and future income loss and future care costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to discharge the jury, the apportionment of damages, or the quantum of damages awarded.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a noting in default.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence that was not reasonably available to the appellant's newly retained counsel and that confirmed the appellant's explanation for the delay.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the noting in default, but limited the appellant's statement of defence to the issue of damages, as liability was essentially admitted.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent was injured when the top of a utility pole erected by the appellant municipality snapped during a windstorm and struck his vehicle on the highway.

The trial judge found the municipality liable in negligence and awarded damages.

On appeal, the municipality argued the action was barred by the limitation periods in sections 284(2) and 284(3) of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 284(3) only applies when a vehicle leaves the highway, and section 284(2) did not apply because the claim was properly framed in negligence rather than non-repair.

The trial judge's inference of negligence and assessment of evidence were also upheld.