Valerie D. Wise

The defendants appealed an order striking their statement of defence for failing to comply with production orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred in principle by striking the pleading without reviewing all the affidavit evidence.

The Court concluded the 'ultimate litigation remedy' was not warranted given the defendants' efforts to comply, mutual delay, and limited evidence of prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendants were ordered to produce all outstanding documents within seven days.

The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle she co-owned with her father.

At the time of the accident, the vehicle was uninsured and the appellant was driving without her father's consent.

The trial judge found that both were owners under the Highway Traffic Act, but that the father and his insurer were not liable because the appellant drove without his consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 192(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, a co-owner in possession of the vehicle does not need the consent of the other co-owner for both to be held vicariously liable.

The appellant employer appealed its conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to take every reasonable precaution to protect a worker after an employee lost his leg in a moving kiln car.

The employer argued that the trial judge failed to consider existing safety measures, convicted on a basis not pleaded in the particulars, and misapplied the onus of proof for a strict liability offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the circumstances, the particulars provided sufficient notice, and the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof and due diligence defence.

The appellant husband was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him unable to continue providing caregiving services to his wife, who suffered from a pre-existing medical condition.

The husband elected to receive income replacement benefits rather than caregiver benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The wife brought a derivative claim under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for the cost of hiring a substitute caregiver.

The Court of Appeal held that the substitute caregiver expenses were not 'health care' expenses under the Insurance Act, meaning the defendants were not protected from liability.

Furthermore, the court held that the wife's claim was her own statutory cause of action and was not barred by her husband's election of benefits.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the respondents had an ancillary right to park vehicles along a right-of-way and awarding damages for nuisance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that parking was an ancillary right based on over forty years of use and the circumstances surrounding the creation of the right-of-way.

The Court also upheld the nuisance damage award.

However, the Court varied the judgment regarding the cost of installing a holding tank, ordering the parties to split the cost equally due to mutual carelessness.

The appeal was allowed in part.