Tsaoussis v. Baetz, (1998) 112 O.A.C. 78 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Doherty, Abella and Charron, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1998), 112 O.A.C. 78 (CA),1998 CanLII 5454 (ON CA),41 OR (3d) 257,165 DLR (4th) 268,[1998] OJ No 3516 (QL),112 OAC 78,27 CPC (4th) 223,82 ACWS (3d) 260
• Date: 30 April 1998

Tsaoussis v. Baetz (1998), 112 O.A.C. 78 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.013

Lorrie Tsaoussis, by her litigation guardian, the children's lawyer, Carol Metcalf, Carol Metcalf personally and Angela Tsaoussis, by her litigation guardian Carol Metcalf (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Juanita M. Baetz (defendant/appellant)

And Lorrie Tsaoussis, by her litigation guardian, Carol Metcalf (applicant) v. Juanita M. Baetz (respondents)

(C27319)

Indexed As: Tsaoussis v. Baetz

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Abella and Charron, JJ.A.

September 2, 1998.

Summary:

An infant pedestrian was struck and injured by an automobile owned and oper­ated by the defendant. A court approved settlement of $5,000 was made. Subsequently, the infant was found to have suffered brain damage. The infant issued a statement of claim against the defendant, seeking damages of $2.2 million. The infant applied to set aside the settlement. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action and asserted that a derivative claim of the in­fant's mother was statute barred.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported at 30 O.T.C. 161; 33 O.R.(3d) 679, concluded that the settlement should be set aside, because it was not in the infant's best interests. The court declined to dismiss the action and held that the mother's derivative claim was not statute barred, where the infant's claim had not expired. The defendant appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision and dismissed the action.

Infants - Topic 6044

Legal proceedings - Jurisdiction - Com­mon law or inherent jurisdiction of courts (parens patriae) - [See Practice - Topic 9857 ].

Infants - Topic 6123

Legal proceedings - Approval of settle­ments and judgments - Considerations - [See Practice - Topic 9857 ].

Practice - Topic 6115

Judgments and orders - Amendment, re­scission and variation of judgments and orders - Rescission - General - An injured infant was undercompensated by a set­tlement and sought to set aside the judg­ment approving the settlement - The On­tario Court of Appeal discussed the criteria to be applied in determining whether the judgment should be set aside - The court stated that the finality prin­ciple must not yield unless the moving party can show that new evidence could not have been put forward by the exercise of due diligence - "If that hurdle is cleared, the court will go on to evaluate other factors such as the cogency of the new evidence, any delay in moving to set aside the previous judgment, any difficulty in relitigating the issues and any prejudice to other parties or persons who may have acted in reliance on the judgment" - See paragraph 44.

Practice - Topic 6115

Judgments and orders - Amendment, re­scission and variation of judgments and orders - Rescission - General - [See Prac­tice - Topic 9857 ].

Practice - Topic 9857

Settlements - Setting aside - Grounds - An infant pedestrian was injured by an auto­mobile - A court approved settlement of $5,000 was made - Subsequently, the infant was found to have suffered brain damage - The infant issued a statement of claim against the defendant, seeking dam­ages of $2.2 million and moved to set aside the judgment approving the settle­ment - The motions judge set aside the judgment, because it was not in the in­fant's best interests, and directed that the action should proceed - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the decision and dis­missed the action - The motions judge discounted the importance of finality of judgments - Moreover, the court's parens patriae jurisdiction did not expand infants' rights to involve a right to periodic review of compensation - The motions judge also erred in admitting fresh evidence, where it might have been discovered with reason­able diligence prior to judgment.

Cases Noticed:

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, refd to. [para. 14].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. Roman, [1963] 1 O.R. 312 (C.A.), affd. [1963] S.C.R. vi, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; 108 N.R. 147; 75 C.R.(3d) 352, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 21, refd to. [para. 18].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 18].

Doering v. Grandview (Town), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 19].

Hennig v. Northern Heights (Sault) Ltd. (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Glatt v. Glatt, [1937] S.C.R. 3437, affing. [1936] O.R. 75 (C.A), refd to. [para. 19].

Whitehall Development Corp. v. Walker (1977), 4 C.P.C. 97 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Rosen (L.M.) Realty Ltd. v. D'Amore (1988), 29 C.P.C.(2d) 106 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Tiwana v. Popove (1988), 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 392 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 7].

Castlerigg Investments Inc. v. Lam (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 216 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 7].

Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 13 C.P.C.(3d) 6; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 9].

Eve v. Mrs. E. - see Eve, Re.

Poulin v. Nadon, [1950] O.R. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Carter v. Junkin (1984), 47 O.R.(2d) 427 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Kendall v. Kindl Estate (1992), 10 C.P.C.(3d) 24 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

Steeves v. Fitzsimmons (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 387 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

Makowka v. Anderson (1990), 67 D.L.R.(4th) 751 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

McCann v. Shepherd, [1973] 2 All E.R. 885 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Mercer v. Sijan (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Sengmueller v. Sengmueller (1994), 17 O.R.(3d) 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Tepperman v. Rosenberg (1985), 48 C.P.C. 317 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 38, foot­note 11].

McGuire v. Naugh, [1934] O.R. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Russell v. Brown, [1948] O.R. 835 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Braithwaite v. Haugh (1978), 19 O.R.(2d) 288 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Molleson (1879), 4 App. Cas. 801, refd to. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jacob, J.I., The Fabric of English Civil Justice (1987), Hamlin Lectures, pp. 23-24 [para. 15].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, The Report on Compensation for Personal Injuries and Death (1987), c. 5 [para. 14, footnote 6].

Waddams, The Law of Damages, pp. 3.10 to 3.260 [para. 14, footnote 6].

Counsel:

Sheldon A. Gilbert, Q.C., for the appellant;

Andre I.G. Michael, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on April 30, 1998, before Doherty, Abella and Charron, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On Septem­ber 2, 1998, Doherty, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court.