Graham M. Bennett

During an ongoing medical negligence trial involving a minor plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage at birth, the parties disputed the phrasing of the jury question on causation.

The plaintiffs argued for the phrase 'caused or contributed to', relying on recent jurisprudence involving multiple tortfeasors.

The defendant argued for the conventional 'but for' standard.

The court held that the factual matrix was not so confusing as to preclude the conventional 'but for' test, and ordered the jury questions to be phrased using the 'but for' standard.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident case, arguing the trial judge erred by charging the jury on both the 'but for' and 'material contribution' tests for causation.

The Court of Appeal agreed that charging on both tests was an error of law, as only one test applies.

However, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the trial judge's explanation of 'material contribution' effectively amounted to a further instruction on the 'but for' test.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's guidance on the quantum of damages was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages against them for failing to pay amounts owed under agreements for the purchase of an operating gravel pit.

The appellants argued they were induced to enter the agreements by oral warranties and promises made by the respondents, which were breached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's factual findings that no such oral undertakings or warranties were made, noting the appellants were represented by experienced counsel and the alleged warranties were not included in the written documents.

The plaintiff sued a corporate tenant for breach of a commercial lease and its sole shareholder personally for inducing the breach.

The plaintiff also sued a subsequent purchaser of the tenant's assets for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance.

The trial judge found the tenant and shareholder liable but dismissed the claims against the purchaser.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of personal liability against the shareholder, holding that entering into two leases was not a tortious act outside the scope of his authority and did not justify piercing the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the purchaser was dismissed.