Rita Bambers

The plaintiffs, former inmates of the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, brought a motion to certify a class action against the provincial Crown alleging systemic negligence and Charter breaches resulting from overcrowding and inadequate supervision.

The Crown opposed certification and moved to strike portions of the claim and evidence.

The court struck the claim for breach of fiduciary duty but found the pleadings otherwise disclosed reasonable causes of action in systemic negligence and Charter breaches.

The court admitted the plaintiffs' evidence for the limited purpose of the certification motion and concluded that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.

The appellant insurance company appealed a motions judge's decision that the plaintiff was not an 'occupant' of a motorcycle when she was struck by an uninsured motorist while standing near the parked vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the 'objective observer' test to find that the plaintiff was a passenger and therefore an occupant under s. 224(1) of the Insurance Act.

As a result, the respondent insurer was solely liable for the plaintiff's claim.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the successful appellants sought their costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded the appellants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Finding the submitted bill of costs to be excessive, the court fixed the costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The plaintiff suffered a perforated bowel and fractured vertebra in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the jury assessed general damages at $500,000.

The trial judge reduced the award to the upper limit of $274,000 and permitted the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to match this amount.

The defendants appealed, arguing the award was excessive, and the plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing the cap should not apply.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly applied the cap and allowed the amendment, but found the $274,000 award excessive.

The Court substituted its own assessment of $150,000 for general damages.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured motorist.

They entered into a limits agreement with the tortfeasor, agreeing not to pursue damages beyond his policy limits, without notifying their own insurer.

The respondents then sought to recover the remainder of their damages from their insurer under the SEF 44 Endorsement.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the limits agreement interfered with its subrogation rights and meant the respondents were no longer 'legally entitled to recover' from the tortfeasor.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the limits agreement did not preclude the respondents' claim against their insurer, as 'legally entitled to recover' refers to the right of action at the time of the accident, and the insurer's subrogation rights had not yet arisen.