McVey v. Petruk, 111 AR 36

• Judge: Picard, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 02, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: 111 AR 36;1990 CanLII 5594 (AB QB);77 Alta LR (2d) 88;(1990), 111 A.R. 36 (QB)

McVey v. Petruk (1990), 111 A.R. 36 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Maureen C. McVey (plaintiff) v. Ken C. Petruk, Loubert Suddaby, John Doe, Mary Moe and The Royal Alexandra Hospitals (defendants)

(Action No. 8803 03829)

Indexed As: McVey v. Petruk et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Picard, J.

November 2, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action against several defendants for damages for alleged medical negligence and battery. She applied under s. 16 of the Jury Act to have the case tried by a jury.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 5100

Jury and jury trials - Right to a jury - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench indicated several useful factors that may assist a judge in exercising discretion to grant or dismiss an application for jury trial - See paragraph 12.

Practice - Topic 5101

Jury and jury trials - Right to a jury - Time for determining - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a jury trial to a plaintiff suing several defendants for medical negligence and battery - The court noted that not all pretrial procedures had been completed, for example, the exchange of expert reports - The court stated that the matter of a jury trial could be reviewed should matters arise to bring the action within the exceptions under s. 16(2) of the Jury Act - See paragraphs 19 to 20.

Practice - Topic 5105

Jury and jury trials - Right to a jury - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a jury trial to a plaintiff suing for damages for medical negligence and battery - The case would not involve prolonged examination of documents or complex matters; medical evidence would not be conflicting; medical evidence would not be difficult and could be explained by lay persons - A proper jury charge would explain the law respecting the functions of judge and jury, burden of proof, credibility, duty of care, apportionment of liability and damages and the application of the law to the facts which were not unusually complicated - See paragraphs 9 to 18.

Practice - Topic 5108

Jury and jury trials - Right to a jury - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the onus of persuading that a party in a civil matter is not entitled to a jury trial is on the party opposing an application - See paragraphs 11 and 16.

Cases Noticed:

King v. Colonial Homes Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 528; 4 D.L.R.(2d) 561, refd to. [para. 12].

Neelands v. Haig, [1957] O.W.N. 337; 9 D.L.R.(2d) 165 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Przybylski v. Morcos et al. (1986), 75 A.R. 233; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Knight v. Goodfellow (1979), 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Soldwisch v. Toronto Western Hospital (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 449; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 446; 38 C.P.C. 309, refd to. [para. 12].

Majcenic v. Natale, [1968] 1 O.R. 189; 66 D.L.R.(2d) 50 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hoffmann Estate v. Panarctic Oils Ltd. et al. (1977), 2 A.R. 253; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 151 (S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Mewhort v. Frimer (1980), 19 C.P.C. 59 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Dash Tours Alta. Ltd. v. XV Olympic Winter Games Organizing Committee (1988), 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 132, folld. [para. 20].

McDonald v. Leduc Utilities Ltd. (1952), 7 W.W.R.(N.S.) 603 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Wenger Estate v. Marien et al. (1977), 6 A.R. 468; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 378 (S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Mang et al. v. Moscovitz et al. (1980), 28 A.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Pavic v. Holy Cross Hospital et al. (1987), 81 A.R. 119; 51 Alta. L.R.(2d) 218, refd to. [para. 14].

Robinson Estate et al. v. Doolittle Estate (1988), 90 A.R. 376; 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-2.1, sect. 16 [paras. 1, 9]; sect. 16(1) [para. 10]; sect. 16(2) [paras. 10, 20].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 218.1 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gaetz, D., Jury Trials in Civil Actions (1988), 22 Gazette (L.S.U.C.) 119, pp. 119-128 [para. 15].

Counsel:

C.E. Campbell, for the plaintiff;

B.F. Windwick, for the defendant The Royal Alexandra Hospitals;

R.M. Carter, for the defendants Ken C. Petruk and Loubert Suddaby.

This application was heard before Picard, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on November 2, 1990.