Bedard v. Martyn et al., (2010) 469 A.R. 322 (CA)

• Judge: Conrad, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: November 30, 2009
• Citations: (2010), 469 A.R. 322 (CA);2010 ABCA 3

Bedard v. Martyn (2010), 469 A.R. 322 (CA);

      470 W.A.C. 322

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JA.050

Logan Bedard, by his next friend Susan Bedard, Susan Bedard and Shayne Bedard (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Dr. Harish Amin and Dr. Deborah Maurer (respondents/defendants) and Dr. Paul L. Martyn, Dr. Neville E. Galan, Dr. Joel Steed, Dr. Dhea Wallace-Chau, Calgary Health Region, Foothills Medical Centre, Drs. John Doe 1 - 4, and Nurses John Doe 1 - 10 (not party to the appeal/defendants)

(0901-0183-AC; 2010 ABCA 3)

Indexed As: Bedard v. Martyn et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A.

January 5, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants for injuries suffered by the plaintiff child within days of his birth. The action was discontinued against all but the Calgary Health Region, the Foothills Medical Centre, and two doctors. Shortly before trial, the doctors were advised that the plaintiffs had reached a settlement with the Health Centre and the Medical Centre, based on a Pierringer agreement.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 468 A.R. 261, concluded that the two doctors were negligent and 25 percent responsible for the injuries. In a decision reported at 468 A.R. 296, the court concluded that the amount of the settlement monies paid under the Pierringer agreement had to be deducted from the damages awarded at trial. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge carefully considered the competing policy objectives and correctly concluded that the current state of Canadian law was that the concern over double compensation outweighed the public interest in encouraging settlements.

Damages - Topic 510

Limits of compensatory damages - General - Prohibition against double recovery - [See Practice - Topic 9853 ].

Practice - Topic 9851.1

Settlements - Mary Carter or Pierringer agreements - [See Practice - Topic 9853 ].

Practice - Topic 9853

Settlements - By one of multiple defendants, joint or concurrent tortfeasors or successive contract breakers - Effect of - The issue on this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in concluding that settlement funds received pursuant to a Pierringer agreement between the plaintiffs and the settling defendants had to be set off against the damages awarded against the non-settling defendants at trial - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed no error in coming to that conclusion - The trial judge carefully considered the competing policy objectives at issue and "correctly concluded that the current state of Canadian law is that the concern over double compensation outweighs the public interest in encouraging settlements" - The court added the qualification that "[t]he end result following the deduction of settlement proceeds should be that the appellants receive the full level of compensation for which the trial judge found the non-settling defendants liable ... Only the net settlement proceeds, after an appropriate deduction for costs incurred in the claim against the settling defendants, should be set off against the damage award at trial".

Practice - Topic 9871

Settlements - Costs provision - [See Practice - Topic 9853 ].

Cases Noticed:

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Propak Systems Ltd. et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 185; 248 W.A.C. 185; 91 Alta. L.R.(3d) 13; 2001 ABCA 110, consd. [para. 8].

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, consd. [para. 8].

Parry v. Cleaver, [1969] 1 All E.R. 555 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Cooper v. Miller (No. 1), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359; 164 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 1; 66 W.A.C. 1; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Cunningham v. Wheeler - see Cooper v. Miller (No. 1).

Laudon v. Roberts et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 72; 308 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 2009 ONCA 383, refd to. [para. 13].

Ashcroft v. Dhaliwal et al. (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 160; 436 W.A.C. 160; 298 D.L.R.(4th) 509; 2008 BCCA 352, leave to appeal denied (2009), 395 N.R. 387 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 13].

Counsel:

R.W. Armstrong and S.D. Petriuk, for the appellants;

V.R.M. Prather, for the defendants.

This appeal was heard on November 30, 2009, by Conrad, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed by the Court at Calgary, Alberta, on January 5, 2010.