Anderson v. Maple Ridge (District) et al., (1992) 17 B.C.A.C. 172 (CA)

• Judge: Southin, Legg and Wood, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Tuesday April 07, 1992
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 172 (CA)

Anderson v. Maple Ridge (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 172 (CA);

    29 W.A.C. 172

MLB headnote and full text

Darin James Anderson (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (defendant/respondent) and Alan Calven Erickson and Donald Ignaz Uhrmann (defendants)

(CA013107)

Indexed As: Anderson v. Maple Ridge (District) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Legg and Wood, JJ.A.

September 1, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiff driver sued the defendant municipality, among others, for damages suffered in a car accident. A judge and jury dismissed the action against the municipality. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Evidence - Topic 212

Inferences and weight of evidence - Inferences - Inference of negligence - A motorist who went through a stop sign at an intersection and was hit when broadsided sued the municipality for negligence in placement of the sign - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that evidence of the municipality's subsequent relocation of the sign and its consequences was admissible - The court held that the evidence was not to be excluded on the ground that it inferred negligence, as long as the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be taken as an admission of liability - See paragraphs 13 to 15, 21 to 28.

Evidence - Topic 1026

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Prejudicial evidence - A motorist who went through a stop sign at an intersection and was hit when broadsided sued the municipality for negligence in placement of the sign - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that evidence of the municipality's subsequent relocation of the sign and its consequences was admissible - The court held that the evidence was not to be excluded on the ground of its prejudicial effect - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Evidence - Topic 1026

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Prejudicial evidence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a judge trying a civil case in Canada has a discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value - See paragraph 30.

Evidence - Topic 1125

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Relevance of evidence offered - General - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that evidence is relevant if it is logically probative of either a fact in issue or a fact which itself is probative of a fact in issue - Evidence which tends to make the existence of a fact in issue either more or less probable is logically probative of that fact - See paragraph 17.

Evidence - Topic 1157

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Facts relevant to the issue - Subsequent conduct - A motorist who went through a stop sign at an intersection and was hit when broadsided sued the municipality for negligence in placement of the sign - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that evidence of the municipality's subsequent relocation of the sign and its consequences was admissible - The evidence was relevant because it was logically probative of the fact sought to be proved i.e. that the sign, at the time of the accident, was either difficult to see or easily overlooked - See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Evidence - Topic 4105

Witnesses - Privilege - Voir dire - Necessity of - At a jury trial the anticipated evidence of one witness was objected to - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should have held a voir dire during which the actual evidence of the witness could have been heard - Then the trial judge could have dealt with the matter in other than a hypothetical manner and an appellate court would not be left to conjecture over either the nature of the evidence or its true significance - See paragraph 12.

Practice - Topic 9226

Appeals - New trials - Admissible evidence rejected - A motorist who went through a stop sign at an intersection and was hit when broadsided sued the municipality for negligence in placement of the sign - The trial judge rejected evidence of the municipality's subsequent relocation of the sign and its consequences - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, finding that the evidence was admissible, ordered a new trial because it was impossible to conclude that the jury verdict would reasonably have been the same if the evidence had been admitted - See paragraphs 34 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 23].

Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Canada Ltd. et al. (1979), 11 B.C.L.R. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Draper v. Jacklyn et al., [1970] S.C.R. 92, refd to. [para. 30].

Mood Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v. De Wolfe Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 763 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [para. 31].

MacDonald et al. v. Canada Kelp Co. Ltd. et al., [1975] 5 W.W.R. 689 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 7, sect. 27 [para. 35].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Court of Appeal Rules, rule 34 [paras. 36-37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed.), p. 51 [para. 17].

Stephen, Digest of the Law of Evidence (12th Ed.), art. 1 [para. 17].

Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898), pp. 264-265 [para. 17]; 264-266 [para. 23].

Thayer, Presumptions and the Law of Evidence (1899), 3 Harv. Law Rev. 141, p. 144 [para. 23].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1979), vol. 2, p. 185 [para. 1].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1981), vol. 1A, para. 28, p. 969 [para. 23].

Counsel:

M.D. Blok, for the appellant;

S.G. Margolis, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Southin, Legg and Wood, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, British Columbia on April 7, 1992, where the following decision was delivered for the court by Wood, J.A., on September 1, 1992.