In Linda Trevors v. Anne Doucet, Lea Allard, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Company, and Co-operators General Insurance,1 (hereinafter “Trevors v. Doucet”) the moving party applied for summary judgment early in the proceeding. Discovery had not yet occurred. The applicants were successful on the motion despite allegations it was premature. Background On May 16, 2015, a head […]
In Rankin (Rankin’s Garage and Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified how it will interpret existing duties of care, in the context of a personal injury arising from the theft of a vehicle stored at a commercial garage, and the evidentiary requirements for establishing novel duties of care.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Sataur v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, addressed the issue of whether individual employees can be personally liable for breaching a duty of care owed to a customer in the course of their employment.
Over the course of two years, a retirement home administrator by the name of Melissa Gibson-Heath stole $229,000 from an elderly resident of the retirement home where she worked, the Fairfield Manor East.
As of January 1, 2017, Rule 22 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court for ‘Summary Judgment’ was repealed and replaced. Rule 22 for Summary Judgment has now been transformed from a means to weed out unmeritorious claims to a significant alternative model of adjudication.
It is relatively commonplace for corporations to allow their corporate officers to also use the company vehicle for personal use. In MacInnis v Rayner & Raylink, 2016 PESC 40, the PEI Supreme Court addressed the circumstances in which a court might pierce the corporate veil to find that the individual corporate officer is the true owner of the vehicle.