Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages
In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is no, which Justice McDougall recently confirmed in Perrin v Blake, 2016 NSSC 88.
Nova Scotia’s Contributory Negligence Act provides in section 3 that a plaintiff found contributorily negligent is only entitled to recover from each defendant in proportion to that defendant’s liability. The words “jointly and severally” do not appear in the Contributory Negligence Act – an important factor in the decision.
In other words, the defendants are not jointly and severally liable to the negligent plaintiff. They are only severally, or proportionately, liable.
Take the example of a Nova Scotia plaintiff who is found 50% liable for a motor vehicle accident, with each of two defendants 25% liable. The plaintiff can only recover 25% of her damages from each defendant, because that is the proportion that corresponds to each defendant’s own fault. (If the defendants were jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff could recover the entirety of the other 50% share of her damages from either defendant, who could then pursue their co-defendant for contribution pursuant to the Tortfeasors Act.)
Justice McDougall’s decision on this point is consistent with many previous Nova Scotia cases, like Inglis Ltd v South Shore Sales & Service Ltd (1979), 31 NSR (2d) 541 (SC (AD)); Lunenburg (County) District School Board v Piercey, 1998 CanLII 3265 (CA); Teed v Amero, 2001 NSSC 97; and Merrick v Guilbeault, 2009 NSSC 60.
These cases have not been overtaken by the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) Ltd v Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd, [1997] 2 SCR 1210 or Ingles Tutkaluk Construction Ltd, 2000 SCC 12, which dealt with different statutory regimes.
Justice McDougall acknowledged that other provinces—like Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan—have made different legislative choices about the liability of concurrent tortfeasors where there is contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. On Nova Scotia’s regime, Justice McDougall noted: “While this may limit a plaintiff’s ability to recover, it is nonetheless a valid way to allocate the risk of non-recovery and should not be interfered with.”
Therefore, the status quo remains in force in Nova Scotia: a contributorily negligent plaintiff will only be able to recover from each of multiple concurrent tortfeasors according to the proportion of their liability.
Stewart McKelvey represented one of the defendants in this matter and successfully advocated for this confirmation of the law. The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect you, please contact a member of our Insurance practice group.
Archive
Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…
Read MoreOn May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…
Read MoreBy Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…
Read More