Brisson v. Brisson, 2002 BCCA 279

• Judge: Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 29, 2002
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2002 BCCA 279;(2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 255 (CA)

Brisson v. Brisson (2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 255 (CA);

    275 W.A.C. 255

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.001

Rose Marie Brisson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Allen Brisson (appellant/defendant)

(CA028529; 2002 BCCA 279)

Indexed As: Brisson v. Brisson

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.

May 29, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiff passenger sued the defendant driver for damages for personal injuries suf­fered in a single-car accident. Liability was admitted by the defendant at trial. The nature and extent of the injuries suffered were in dispute, as well as the appropriate damages.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 659, ruled (despite the defendant's opposition), that it would "instruct the jury on a range of dam­ages". The jury returned with a verdict of $55,000 for nonpecuniary damages. Judg­ment was granted to the plaintiff according­ly. The defendant appealed the ruling.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Huddart, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all issues.

Practice - Topic 5197

Juries and jury trials - Charge to jury - Respecting assessment of damages - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a trial judge could not lawfully sug­gest a range of nonpecuniary damages to a jury - Counsel were also barred from referring to other cases, other awards or range of dam­ages - See paragraphs 49 to 66, 69.

Cases Noticed:

Foreman v. Foster (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 254; 241 W.A.C. 254; 84 B.C.L.R.(3d) 184 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 4, 85].

Force v. Gibbons (1978), 93 D.L.R.(3d) 626 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 15, 83].

Crosby Estate v. O'Reilly, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 381; 2 N.R. 338, consd. [para. 16].

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Way v. Frigon, 2001 BCSC 573, refd to. [para. 22].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Cory et al. v. Marsh (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 118; 38 W.A.C. 118; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 87].

Johns v. Thompson Horse Van Lines Ltd. (1984), 58 B.C.L.R. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ward v. James, [1965] 1 All E.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Gray v. Alanco Developments Ltd., [1967] 1 O.R. 597 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Thompson v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [1997] 2 All E.R. 762 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

John v. MGN Ltd., [1996] 2 All E.R. 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Moreland v. Sutherland et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. J48 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Vaillancourt v. Molnar Estate, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1337 (S.C.), consd. [para. 43].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al. (2002), 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 44, 83].

Estphanous v. McLeod, [2001] B.C.T.C. 331; 88 B.C.L.R.(3d) 192 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Howes et al. v. Crosby et al. (1984), 2 O.A.C. 375; 45 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Rieger et al. v. Burgess et al., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 577; 66 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Quintal v. Datta and Skochylas, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 481; 68 Sask.R. 104 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1989), 100 N.R. 239; 76 Sask.R. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Ede v. Junek and Hart, [1991] 1 W.W.R. 60; 87 Sask.R. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 81].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, addendum 147 N.R. 336; 21 B.C.A.C. 159; 37 W.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 81].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel.

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119, refd to. [para. 81].

Bazley v. Curry - see P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al.

Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552, refd to. [para. 82].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 82].

Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rail­way Co., [1951] A.C. 601; [1951] 3 D.L.R. 705 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Col­lieries Ltd., [1942] A.C. 601 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 88].

Laycock v. Longo et al. (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 164; 276 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Smyth v. Szep (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 108; 21 W.A.C. 108; 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Perdomo-Flores v. Gurney, [1998] B.C.A.C. Uned. 56; 49 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Malloch v. Moenke (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 307; 117 W.A.C. 307; 20 B.C.L.R.(3d) 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

McElroy v. Embleton (1996), 74 B.C.A.C. 304; 121 W.A.C. 304; 19 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 46 C.P.C.(3d) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Gunderson v. Hoogerdyk, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1602 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Maxwell-Smith v. Drummond (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 228; 100 W.A.C. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Boerner v. Watts (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 138; 40 W.A.C. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Coulter v. Andree et al. (1997), 93 B.C.A.C. 298; 151 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Mikkelsen v. Hunter et al. (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 191; 171 W.A.C. 191; 49 B.C.L.R.(3d) 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Baas et al. v. Jellema (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 231; 172 W.A.C. 231; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Stewart et al. v. Shimpei (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 113; 106 W.A.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Cody v. Leonard (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 161; 108 W.A.C. 161; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Cairns v. Emsley et al. (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 147; 92 W.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Gauld et al. v. Jameson (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 285; 67 W.A.C. 285; 89 B.C.L.R.(2d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Broom, Legal Maxims (10th Ed. 1939), p. 82 [para. 73].

Morton, Catherine A., The Power of a Judge to Give Direction to the Jury on the Range of General Damages (Sept. 1991), 49(5) The Advocate, p. 769 [para. 26].

Counsel:

G.P. Brown and W.S. Taylor, for the appellant;

P.J. Rose and M.R. Warkentin, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 11, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on May 29, 2002, when the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Thackray, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 68;

Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 69 to 78;

Huddart, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 79 to 94.