Palpal-Latoc v. Berstad, 2003 ABQB 236

• Judge: Brooker, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 04, 2002
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 236;(2003), 337 A.R. 102 (QB)

Palpal-Latoc v. Berstad (2003), 337 A.R. 102 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.009

Reymundo Palpal-Latoc (plaintiff) v. Pamela Ruth Berstad and Jason Berstad (defendants)

(Action No. 9901-02593; 2003 ABQB 236)

Indexed As: Palpal-Latoc v. Berstad

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Brooker, J.

March 13, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He sued the defendants. The defendants admitted liability. The defendants were granted a civil jury trial. The jury held that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the accident and assessed damages. The plaintiff applied for, inter alia, a declaration that the jury's damage assessment was so plainly unreasonable and unjust that it could not have been reached by them reviewing and understanding the evidence as a whole and acting judicially. The plaintiff sought to have the verdict set aside and asked the trial judge to enter judgment for an appropriate amount.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, holding that there was no basis or jurisdiction to refuse to accept the jury's verdict. The court ordered that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

Damages - Topic 819

Assessment - General - Powers of trial judge re assessment of damages by jury - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in Alberta a trial judge could only refuse to enter a jury's damage assessment when there was no evidence to support the verdict or where it was contrary to law or in the limited and special circumstances set out in the rules 257, 258 or 259 - Further, in those rare circumstances where he or she could refuse to accept a jury's verdict, the trial judge's options were limited - If the verdict was contrary to law, the trial judge could not substitute a damage assessment - Rather, the trial judge could only reduce the award to conform with the legal cap - The trial judge's duty was to determine whether or not there was any evidence to support the verdict - He or she could not weigh the evidence - If there was some evidence, the trial judge should enter judgment accordingly - If there was no evidence, the trial judge should not enter that verdict - The situations set out in the Rules generally mandated a re-trial - The trial judge could not set aside a jury's damage assessment and substitute his or her own assessment.

Practice - Topic 5182

Juries and jury trials - Verdicts - Setting aside jury verdict - [See Damages - Topic 819 ].

Practice - Topic 5186

Juries and jury trials - Verdicts - Variation of verdict by trial judge - [See Damages - Topic 819 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cameron v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 138; 35 N.R. 213; 44 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 83 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 11].

Zablotny v. Levine (1981), 29 B.C.L.R. 6 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Loffredi v. Simonetti, [1988] O.J. No. 1340 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Loughlin v. Nichol et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1523 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Segreti v. Toronto (City) (1981), 20 C.P.C. 110 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Rieger et al. v. Burgess et al. (1988), 66 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Prentice v. Dharamshi, [2000] B.C.T.C. 1085 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Prentice v. Dharamshi (2002), 179 B.C.A.C. 200; 295 W.A.C. 200; 6 B.C.L.R.(4th) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Vaillancourt v. Molnar Estate, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1337 (S.C.), varied (2002), 176 B.C.A.C. 109; 290 W.A.C. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

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. 19].

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

Graff v. Bennett and Thompson (1995), 134 Sask.R. 161; 101 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 5].

Morriscey v. Zwicker (2001), 192 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 599 A.P.R. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 5].

Bisson v. Powell River (District) (1967), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 707 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Olszynko v. Larocque et al. (1998), 83 O.T.C. 49 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 127 O.A.C. 162 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 259 N.R. 398; 139 O.A.C. 300 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning (1992), 7 O.R.(3d) 489 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

LeBlanc v. Penticton (City) (1981), 28 B.C.L.R. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Campbell v. Gray, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1369 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Schepp v. Ozirny, Fisher and Bell (1992), 100 Sask.R. 241; 18 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1993] 1 S.C.R. viii; 149 N.R. 237; 116 Sask.R. 35; 59 W.A.C. 35, refd to. [para. 31].

Linett v. Strasberg, [1994] O.J. No. 2354 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

Harris N. Hanson, for the plaintiff;

James Doyle, for the defendants.

This application was heard on October 4, 2002, before Brooker, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 13, 2003.