Pope v. RGC Management Inc., 2002 ABQB 823

Acting for the Defendant: A 14 year old boy shanked his golf shot striking the Plaintiff in the mouth, destroying eight of her front teeth.  The judge’s decision was that the Defendant was not responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Crackel v. Miller, 2003 ABQB 781; 2004 ABCA 374

Acting for the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after driving into the rear of the Defendant’s commercial vehicle, which was stopped in the middle of the road at night.  Testing at the hospital disclosed the Plaintiff had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit.  

However, after hearing all of the evidence the judge found the hospital testing was unreliable and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was likely below the legal limit.  And, because of the absolute darkness of the Defendant’s vehicle (it was covered in tar and had no lights or reflective surfaces); the presence of pools of light and dark on the tree-lined roadway; and the evidence of other witnesses who had difficulty seeing and avoiding the Defendant’s vehicle, the judge only assessed the Plaintiff with 25% of the fault for the accident and awarded him substantial damages.  

Gerlitz v. Lee, 2007 ABQB 495

Acting for the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff was struck from behind in stop-and-go traffic after the Defendant’s foot slipped off his brake and his vehicle idled forward a few feet into the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Despite the apparent minor nature of the impact, the Plaintiff was awarded in excess of $100,000.00.

Russell v. Ironside (2008) [unreported]

Acting for the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and unable to return to his former gainful employment.  After hearing from all of the Plaintiff’s trial witnesses the Defendant called their witnesses.  Following Richard’s successful cross-examination of the Defendant’s medical expert (whose opinion was that the Plaintiff had recovered and any ongoing issues were not related to the accident), the Defendant asked to discuss settlement and the matter successfully resolved.  

Steeves v. Shepherd, (2009) [unreported]

Acting for the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff was driving a quad ATV on a backcountry trail with another driver.  The companion driver was ahead of the Plaintiff and, after negotiating a blind right corner, narrowly avoided colliding with a 4×4 truck coming the other way.  Despite the companion driver signalling to the Defendant that the Plaintiff was moments away from making the turn himself, the truck continued forward and the Plaintiff was unable to avoid a collision.  The trial resulted in a much more substantial payout than the Defendant was willing to pay by way of settlement.   

Christensen v. The City of Calgary; Gaston v. The City of Calgary, [2010] A.J. 1655; 2011 ABCA 244; 2012 Carswell 532 SCC

Acting for two Plaintiffs: Both men were injured, on separate dates, while rollerblading on a particular section of a City of Calgary pathway west of Glenmore Landing.  The very nature and safety of that particular section of pathway, vis-à-vis rollerbladers, was the key issue at trial.  The judge was satisfied that it was dangerous for rollerbladers, that the City did nothing to appreciate or remediate the danger, and that any warning that did exist was inadequate.  

Bumstead v. Dufresne, 2015 ABQB 787; 2017 ABCA 122; [2017] SCCA No. 223

Acting for the Plaintiff:  The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and, due to chronic pain, was unable to resume any employment.  The trial evidence completed in 2012, but the judge did not render her decision until 2015, which was not favourable to the Plaintiff.  An application to correct her reasons on various points was required.  

Tam and Fung v. Park, (2014) [unreported]

Acting for two Plaintiffs: The Plaintiffs, a driver and passenger, were stopped in their Honda Prelude when they were struck from behind by a ½ ton truck.  The impact had sufficient force that it collapsed the Plaintiffs’ seats; sent the rear spoiler of their Prelude through the interior of their vehicle; and pushed their Prelude into the vehicle stopped in front of them resulting in a 4-car chain reaction collision.  After a trial involving eight counsel, the judge rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Prelude collided with the vehicle in front of it before it was hit from behind.  

Mason v. Thompson; Mason v. Hayes, 2020 ABQB 76 (CanLII)

Acting for the Plaintiff:  The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and, despite a number of attempts, was unable to resume being a self-employed real estate agent.  This case was significant because the Plaintiff was awarded $500,000 for his loss of earning capacity.   

Pederson v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ABKB 198

Acting for the Defendant insurance company in the second of two trials: This was a complicated pure insurance claim.  The Plaintiff was in a rear end collision where the other vehicle fled the scene and was never located.  The owner of the other vehicle and one of its regular drivers (the Defendants) were sued by the Plaintiff.  The Defendants told the Plaintiff, and their insurer Allstate, that the vehicle was stolen prior to the collision and they had no knowledge of the collision or the location of the vehicle.  

The Defendants repeated this story at trial.  The trial judge declared the Defendants to be liars, having lied under oath prior to the trial and at trial, and granted the Plaintiff judgment against the Defendants.  Allstate declared the lying Defendants in breach of their insurance policy and refused to pay the Plaintiff’s judgment on behalf of the Defendants. 

The Plaintiff then sued Allstate to force it to pay the judgment.  The judge in the second trial found that Allstate had acted appropriately during the original claim and was entitled to refuse to pay the judgment on behalf of the lying Defendants.  Fortunately for the Plaintiff, she had coverage through her own SEF 44 insurer and was compensated.