The Hon. Mr. Justice David Fraser

Burden of proof on claimant to establish that vehicle and driver involved in accident correctly identified and that correct party is before the court based on the principles of vicarious liability and the separate legal personality of a company. Importance of statement being in compliance with rule 29. 4 (2) of the Civil procedure Rules when a witness is illiterate

Motor vehicle accident – Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur inapplicable where there is evidence of how accident occurred – No case submission where defendant not put to election – Emergency vehicle regulations – Duties owed by other drivers to drivers of emergency vehicles – Duties of drivers of emergency vehicles – Evidence of Accident Reconstruction Experts

Employer’s Liability – Components of duty of care owed by an employer to an employee – Whether employee contributorily negligent – Quantum of Damages for injuries including electric shock

Civil Procedure – Employers liability – Duty of employer to provide a safe place and system of work – Contributory negligence – Assessment of damages

Claim of Public Interest Immunity – Duty of the court to balance competing aspects of the public interest in the administration of justice versus limiting disclosure to preserve national security – Minister’s Certificate should be given significant weight but is not conclusive – Three stage test to determine effectiveness of Certificate, relevance of documents sought to be withheld and whether documents if relevant should not be disclosed to avoid substantial harm to the public interest

Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were joint or concurrent tortfeasors – classification of the defendants as joint or concurrent tortfeasors is ultimately not significant in this case – critical factor in determining whether settlement with 1st defendant bars continuation of the claim against the 2nd defendant is the nature and intendment of the settlement – no evidence to substantiate that settlement was in partial not full satisfaction of claim – basic rule/principle, that settlement extinguishes claim against other tortfeasor, which prevents the injustice of double recovery, is not disp

Claim arising from alleged procedural errors/unlawful actions in a prior claim – Proper forum to raise those issues is the Court of Appeal in appeal against outcome in prior claim – No separate cause of action arising – Constitutional claim inappropriate – Statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim – Abuse of the process of the court

Necessary status before court to obtain a remedy – Different ways to establish a good root of title – Documentary evidence and evidence of “adverse” possession are two methods – A licensee does not have an interest in land – Operation of the Limitation of Actions Act where adverse possession relied upon to ground title – Both factual open undisturbed possession by the dispossessor for the limitation period and the intention of the dispossessor to possess the property are important in determining if the dispossessor acquires title by adverse possession – Factors to be considered to determine

Application to strike out statement of case – Limitation of Actions Act (LAA) – Simple contract – applicable limitation period – six years – ss. 3 and 46 LAA – no reasonable ground for bringing the claim – abuse of court’s process – No proof of oral agreement/ agreement in writing qualifying as a contract under seal, deed, specialty or obligatory writing for which the limitation period under s. 52 of the LAA is twenty years – Equitable jurisdiction of the court cannot override statute