Mark Charron

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed the dismissal of her civil actions against police officers, the police services board, and the Crown for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and Charter breaches.

The claims arose from her arrest for criminal harassment and a peace bond application related to her involvement in a domestic dispute between her romantic partner and his wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's core conclusions—that the police acted reasonably and had abundant admissible evidence to proceed—were supported by the evidence.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The successful appellant brought an application to amend the Court of Appeal's previous reasons for judgment, which had inadvertently omitted the costs awarded in the underlying tort action from the indemnity order against the respondent insurer.

The insurer opposed the amendment on the basis that it was not a party to the tort action.

The Court granted the application, holding that the insurer's obligation to indemnify under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act applies to the entire judgment recovered against the insured, including costs, regardless of whether the insurer was a party to the tort action.

The appellant was seriously injured when he was shot by a member of his hunting party who mistook him for a deer.

The shooter had driven his truck to the hunting site, stopped, exited the vehicle, and fired his rifle, using the truck's headlights to illuminate the target.

The appellant obtained a judgment against the shooter in negligence and subsequently sued the shooter's automobile insurer under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the injuries did not arise from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the use of the truck to transport the shooter and illuminate the target satisfied the purpose and causation tests, meaning the damages arose indirectly from the use or operation of the automobile.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there were genuine issues of fact and credibility that required a trial for determination.

The court noted that the appellant was an undischarged bankrupt, but the respondents did not challenge her right to proceed.

The motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the appellant was awarded costs of $22,500.

The appellants, family members of a deceased cyclist, appealed an order striking their negligent investigation claim against a municipal police officer and his employer.

They alleged the officer's post-accident investigative failures caused the collapse of criminal proceedings against the driver and prolonged their emotional distress through subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Applying the motion to strike standard and the Kamloops duty of care framework, the court held the investigating officer owed no private law duty of care to the appellants because they had no legal interest in the criminal investigation, prosecution, or discipline process.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal and cross-appeal arising from cross-claims for contribution following settlement of a wrongful death action involving a child killed at a railway crossing near a pedestrian underpass.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that both the railway and the municipality owed duties of care, knew or ought to have known of the danger created by absent or inadequate fencing, and failed to act.

Applying the duty of care analysis and the policy-operational distinction, the court found no reviewable error in the allocation of 75 percent liability to the railway and 25 percent to the municipality.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs.