Robyn Virginia Boucher

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence action arising from a tractor rollover that injured the plaintiff while performing landscaping work on a cottage property.

The property owner argued she met her duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act by relying on an independent contractor, while another defendant denied any supervisory relationship with the plaintiff or responsibility for the tractor’s use.

The court held that numerous material facts were in dispute, including the relationships among the parties, supervision of the work, and instructions provided regarding the tractor.

The evidence raised significant credibility issues and complex questions regarding occupiers’ liability, negligence, and duty of care.

Applying the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that the matter could not be fairly resolved on summary judgment and required a full trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found the respondent not liable in a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had relied on the appellant's evidence, another witness, and the accident report, while rejecting the respondent's own evidence about her position in the queue due to inconsistencies with physical damage.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.