Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625

Case Summary

During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle personal injury trial, the jury foreman conducted internet research and found the Fault Determination Rules under the Insurance Act. The jury asked a question about the regulation, prompting the trial judge to give a correcting charge instructing them to disregard it. The jury subsequently returned a verdict finding the plaintiff 73% contributorily negligent. The plaintiffs moved for a mistrial, arguing the jury was contaminated and failed to follow the correcting charge. The court dismissed the motion, finding the correcting charge was sufficient, the jury's prompt disclosure of the research indicated a willingness to follow instructions, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

COURT FILE NO.: 11-52923

DATE: 2018/05/14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

RONALD A. PATTERSON, NADINE J. CHAPMAN and RONDA LEE PATTERSON

Plaintiffs

– and –

PASCAL PELADEAU

Defendant

Thomas P. Connolly, Adam J. Aldersley and Sarah E. Russell, for the Plaintiffs

Joseph W.L. Griffiths and Megan Murphy, for the Defendant

ARGUED: April 20, 2018

C.T. Hackland J.

REASONS FOR Decision (miSTRIAL MOTION)

OVERVIEW

[1] This 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.

[2] On 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.

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

Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625

Case Summary

OVERVIEW

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 2

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 2