Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625

1This is a motor vehicle personal injury action tried by judge and jury. Liability was very much in issue. Following eight weeks of evidence and closing arguments and my jury charge, the jury began five days of deliberation before returning a verdict. They began their deliberations on a Friday afternoon and returned Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. to continue. They rendered a verdict at the end of the week, late on a Friday afternoon.

2On the weekend just after the jury began to deliberate, juror #1, while at his home engaged in some internet legal research. He found a regulation under the Insurance Act, known as the Fault Determination Rules. On Monday morning he discussed this regulation with the other jurors, which resulted in a jury question conveyed in a note to the court that sought direction about the use to be made of the regulation. Juror #1 was questioned about the circumstances leading to his obtaining and sharing this information with other jurors. A corrective charge and admonition was delivered by me the following day, directing the jury that the Regulation was irrelevant, that they were to disabuse their minds of it and were to refrain from any further internet research pertaining to the trial.

3The jury’s verdict, delivered late Friday afternoon, found the plaintiff Mr. Patterson 73% contributorily negligent in the collision