Terrence L. Robertson

The appellant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following a single-vehicle accident.

At trial, the main issue was whether the appellant or another survivor was driving.

The trial judge admitted prior consistent statements of the other survivor to rebut allegations of recent fabrication.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge improperly used these statements for the truth of their contents and to bolster general credibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly understood the limited use of prior consistent statements and did not rely on them for the truth of their contents.

A 14-year-old uninsured driver stole a car and, while being pursued by a police officer, collided with another vehicle, killing its driver.

The trial judge found the uninsured driver 90% at fault and the police officer 10% at fault.

The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed, arguing its vicarious liability under the Police Act should be limited to the 10% fault attributed to the officer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that because the officer would have been jointly and severally liable under the Negligence Act but for the statutory immunity in the Police Act, the Attorney General steps into the officer's shoes and is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the indivisible damages.