On July 13, 2017, a case which involved slip and fall claim was dismissed by Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. According to the decision document, the main reason of dismissing was the lack of key evidence.

The case was heard on May 31 and June 1, 2017. However, the incident happened in seven years before.

Halifax was hit with a major winter storm on the night between February 16 and 17, 2010. After the storm, Jean Andrea Flowers visited the Wal-Mart Store in the Halifax Shopping Centre with her partner. Flowers fell down and injured herself when she was leaving the store.

As a result of that, she wanted to sue OPB Realty and Allterrain Contracting Ltd. for liability. OPB Realty is the owner of Shopping Centre, and Allterrain has the responsibility for cleaning maintenance.

In an emailed statement, Michelle Kelly, the defendant’s lawyer pointed out that other than the plaintiff, there was no one who could testify on behalf her client, and there was no video tape of the incident.

In addition, the evidence that Flowers showed to prove that the walkways were not sanded or salted was inconclusive.

“So, there was no liability found on the part of the defendants, i.e. in law they were not responsible for the slip and fall.” Kelly says.

Flowers and her lawyer didn’t reply to requests for interviews.

William Lahey, law professor of Health Law Institute of Dalhousie, says these cases are difficult to prove.

“The first point is that in a negligence case, the plaintiff has to show that the injury was caused by the carelessness of the defendant,” Lahey says. “And in this case, there’s nobody in court can testify that they filled in the document based on their first-hand knowledge or reliable second hand knowledge of what the condition of the walkway actually was.”

Slip and fall cases are very common in Canada. They are considered as in the field of tort law.

Lahey thinks that in most tort cases, defendants win more than plaintiffs, because finding conclusive evidence is the biggest problem for plaintiffs.”The law puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff, meaning the person who is injured…” Lahey says. “…Defendants don’t have to show anything, the burden is on the plaintiff to show defendants’ carelessness as the injury.”

Interview audio clip:

Fishermen might want to double check what’s in their traps before tossing them overboard, as using bait contrary to fishing regulations can lead to some pretty hefty fines.

That’s just what happened to P.E.I. Fisherman Kenneth Griffin, who was charged with possession of female Rock crabs by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) officers back in October 2015. A regulatory offence, not a Criminal Code offence specified as requirement 53(a) in the Atlantic Fishery Regulations first established in 1985.

Griffin has been a licensed lobster fisherman since 2001, fishing more than 250 traps in West Point Harbour in P.E.I. DFO officers were patrolling Griffin’s fishing area when a trap was found containing two female Rock crabs impaled on a bait spike. The trap was identified as Griffin’s.

Female Rock crabs, along with Dungeness crabs, Snow crabs, and other species depending on the region, must be released if caught in order to protect the population size by allowing the females to reproduce. Size limits are also placed on male crabs, to ensure they are able to reproduce at least once before they are harvested. Female rock crabs can lay up to 2.5 million eggs at a time.

Griffin claimed the crabs he purchased for bait around that time were from Kildaire Bait & Lobster, and he assumed all the crabs within the purchased crate were male without further inspection. However, the female crabs might have also be found within Griffin’s traps themselves and then mistakenly used for baiting.

Two “helpers” of Griffin were the ones that placed them on the bait spike. When questioned about the training they received in regards to discerning males form females, Griffin stated in court, “Just your basic turn it over, if it’s female, throw it over, if it’s a male use it. If it’s not, put it in the crate or just use your judgment.” 

Neither of the two helpers testified at trial that took place in July 2016, wherein Griffin was issued a fine of $1,500.

A month later Griffin and his attorney John Maynard filed a notice of appeal, questioning the conviction. Maynard says the issue was Griffin’s state of knowledge in the use of the crabs. “I’ve had people plead guilty to using female crab but this is the first one that I’ve fought,” says Maynard. “How the fishermen that I’ve had before that have plead guilty got female crabs is out of their [own] lobster traps.”

“I don’t think this kind of enforcement is appropriate,” says Maynard. “I think it puts fishermen at risk…”

Communications Advisor for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Kirsta Petersen, was able to confirm the number of times this charge has been laid out in this area. She says, “In DFO’s Gulf Region a total of 47 charges have been laid under Section 53(a) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations in the last 10 years.” This includes the use of both Rock crabs and Snow crabs.

Voice of Kenneth Griffin's Lawyer John Maynard on why he is contesting this case with an appeal.

Judge Tracey Clements of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on June 30, 2017. However Griffin and Maynard plan to bring it forward to the P.E.I. Court of Appeal as well. “This is a summary conviction appeal, so the first appeal is to a judge of the Supreme Court trail division and an appeal from [Judge Clements’] decision is to the Court of Appeal,” says Maynard.

The case could also be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, but Maynard states since only a fraction of cases are even accepted for a hearing it is very unlikely.

This case can come as a warning to other fishermen in the Atlantic regions, that even if completely unintentional, it might still help to give your traps a second check to make sure female crabs aren’t the bait luring in your next catch.

Lawyers in a Nova Scotia class action lawsuit against the Canadian military will seek to put a hold on the case while they join a class action filed in Federal Court against the Canadian Armed Forces.

According to Kate Boyle, one of the lawyers in the Nova Scotia case, plaintiffs in four provinces are seeking permission to sue the CAF together for discrimination.

Boyle represents Glynis Rogers, the lead plaintiff in a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed against the Canadian Forces in November 2016. She said it made sense that her firm join with others on the case in Federal Court, which was filed after Rogers’ case. The proposed class action would combine suits from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and British Colombia.

The amalgamated class action includes the case of Sherry Heyder, a Thunder Bay, Ont. reservist who first joined the military in 1988. According to her statement of claim, Heyder was discriminated against based on her gender and removed from basic training because she is a woman.

In her original statement of claim, Rogers alleges she experienced harassment and sexual assault by other members of the military while at the Royal Military College (RMC), in Kingston, Ont., and while stationed at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Borden. In her statement of claim, she alleges that belittling comments were made about her when she won an award at RMC and she was raped by a male CF member at CFB Borden in 2012. The male member was initially court-martialled, but appealed the decision and was later acquitted by a military tribunal.

Boyle said the decision to put a stay on proceedings on the Rogers case in Nova Scotia ensures there won’t be overlap with the case in Federal Court. Combining the cases will also ensure they don’t get bogged down trying to decide which one can proceed and move the issue forward.

She said they have informed the judge in the Rogers case they would be seeking the stay two weeks ago, but it has not been confirmed yet. The case would remain in the court system but not move forward for the duration of the stay.

Jonathan Shapiro, a law professor at Dalhousie University, said it is uncommon for class action lawsuits to amalgamate into larger ones, but in this case it makes sense as it will put increased pressure on the government to settle rather than go to trial. He said this case follows a recent string of lawsuits filed against the CAF having to do with gender issues.

“There’s some smoke because everyone understands the military has traditionally treated women very badly,” he said. “There’s definitely something there, but whether or not the class action will succeed, impossible to say.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the CAF said the military does not tolerate discrimination or harassment. They said the Department of National Defence is responding to the lawsuit and and the issue of harassment continues to be an ongoing priority.

Shapiro said the military is an environment where abuses are prone to take place because it has traditionally been male-dominated. Despite this, he said it is hard to pin down a specific incident, which is what a class action lawsuit needs to succeed.

Shapiro said it is unlikely that the case will make it all the way to trial. He said the majority of class actions settle out of court, but that process could take up to 10 years. The amount of evidence and moving parts means the cases do not move quickly.

A certification hearing will be held in July 2018 to determine whether the four separate cases can be combined into a single class action.

In a court decision from last year, a trailer park that served as a filming location for The Trailer Park Boys was denied approximately a year’s worth of rent for one of its lots. Woodbine Park Land Lease Community lost out on that money when the court ruled the Bank of Montreal (BMO) did not inadvertently become Woodbine’s tenant.

This is a scene from the first season of The Trailer Park Boys, which was filmed at Woodbine Park Land Lease Community.

BMO had previously been ordered to pay Woodbine more than $3,000 by the Director of Residential Tenancies. BMO appealed that ruling in the Small Claims Court, and adjudicator Eric K. Slone overturned it. He found that BMO was not a residential tenant, so the verdict from the Residential Tenancies Board did not apply.

“The decision I wrote, it’s a 14 page decision,” said Slone, whose average decision is only five to eight pages. “I am a frequent writer of decisions, but that was a little more involved and I put in a little more time because I did find it to be an interesting legal question.”

That “interesting legal question” is whether a bank can even become a residential tenant. Tenancies for corporations such as BMO are typically commercial, not residential.

Jamie Baxter, a professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law who specializes in land use and property law, also finds the issue fascinating.

“The adjudicator in this case is trying to struggle with… figuring out what the legislators were trying to tell us,” said Baxter.

The Facts

On Dec. 12, 2011, a man named Gordon MacDonald rented a lot from Woodbine to keep his mobile home there. He took out a loan from BMO around the same time – and used his mobile home as collateral.

In early 2015 MacDonald both abandoned his mobile home at Woodbine and defaulted on his loan to BMO, meaning the bank took possession of the home. After 45 days Woodbine would have been permitted to seize the trailer, so on Mar. 1, 2015, BMO paid off MacDonald’s back rent to Woodbine to keep control of the home. BMO continued paying rent for three more months, at which point it decided to stop paying, presumably because the cost wasn’t worth it.

Even though BMO stopped paying, Woodbine believed that the bank had become responsible for MacDonald’s rent payments. That’s when BMO was ordered to pay the money by the Director of Residential Tenancies, and where Slone’s ruling comes in.

The Ruling

Through a close reading of the language in the Residential Tenancies Act, Slone found that banks could not be residential tenants except in very rare circumstances. Therefore, the act did not apply in this situation, and the ruling from the board was void.

Slone’s judgement did not rule out the possibility of BMO paying Woodbine some or all of the money, only that BMO could not be compelled to pay under the Residential Tenancies Act; Woodbine would need to take its dispute with BMO somewhere else if it wished to continue pursuing the money.

Baxter said that Slone’s ruling was sufficient, but there were other ways Slone could have gone about the verdict.

“Look at the broader purposes of the act,” said Baxter. “What the court doesn’t say but could say here is ‘You shouldn’t be clogging up the works of what is meant to be a regime of access and justice for generally disempowered individuals,’” said Baxter.

Although Slone didn’t use that kind of language in his decision, he does seem to agree with Baxter.

“I didn’t think [the Residential Tenancies Board] was really the place for where corporate entities should be resolving their disputes. I think it really does serve as a place for individuals, and not corporations, to be litigating their issues,” said Slone.

The number of people who wish to join a class action lawsuit involving thousands of children who were placed in foster care in B.C. is so high that one of Canada’s leading class action law firms can’t answer them all.

“We have to transfer people to a hotline that gives the most recent updates and explains the qualifications and steps that have to be taken to apply”, says a receptionist at Klein Lawyers, a personal injury and class action law firm in Vancouver. She said she did not know the exact number of people enrolled in the class action at the moment.

The Government of Canada is trying to reach a national settlement with victims of the Sixties Scoop, which means all class action lawsuits are currently under hold while discussions for an agreement are undergoing.

The Sixties Scoop class action alleges that the Government of Canada failed “to take steps to prevent Indian children from losing their Aboriginal identity and the opportunity to exercise their Aboriginal and treaty rights, causing ongoing harm to Indian children in care.”

Thousands of Indigenous people across Canada continue to join the different Sixties Scoop lawsuits in the country, seeking justice for the actions done by the Government of Canada.

During the Sixties Scoop, First Nations, Métis and Inuit children across Canada were taken away from their homes by child-welfare agencies between 1960s and 1980s. The majority of children were placed in non-Indigenous homes by agencies without taking steps to preserve their culture and identity, according to the B.C. class action lawsuit. Some children were sent to live in other provinces, other countries and other continents.

In February 2017 an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in favour of Sixties Scoop survivors, stating that the Government of Canada breached its “duty of care” to the children, and ignored the damaging effects of the Ontario-led program.

Summary Court (Text)

Since the February decision, “18 new claims started across Canada, but Ontario is still the only claim that has been certified and successful in establishing liability”, says Jessica Braude, one of the lawyers in the Ontario class action that involved 16,000 people.