Rishi Singh Bhasin

The defendant car auction company brought a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to dismiss a negligence claim arising from injuries caused when a stolen vehicle collided with the plaintiffs’ vehicle ten days after the theft.

The moving party argued that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a thief would negligently cause harm to third parties days after a theft, relying on appellate authority concerning foreseeability in car theft cases.

The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was certain to fail because the pleadings alleged circumstances that could support foreseeability, including the possibility that the thief was dangerously driving while evading police.

The court also found the motion premature given the absence of evidentiary context typically available after discovery or trial.

However, several subparagraphs of the amended statement of claim were struck as speculative and lacking material facts.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on the secondary ground.

The charges arose from an alleged impaired driving incident involving a high-speed collision shortly after the applicant had pleaded guilty to a prior “over 80” offence and was subject to a one-year driving prohibition.

The applicant proposed a new release plan involving two sureties, financial pledges, house arrest, and counselling for alcohol-related issues.

The court held that the proposed plan did not sufficiently mitigate the substantial likelihood that the applicant would commit further offences while on release.

The application for bail review was dismissed on the basis that detention remained necessary for the protection and safety of the public.