Tavern Liability - Section 39 of the Liquor Licence Act

Dickerson v. 1610396 Ontario Inc. (Carey’s Pub and Grill), 2010 O.N.C.A. 894 (CanLII)

Section 39 of the Liquor License Act creates civil liability for commercial establishments selling liquor. Section 39 reads as follows:

39. The following rules apply if a person or an agent or employee of a person sells liquor to or for a person whose condition is such that the consumption of liquor would apparently intoxicate the person or increase the person’s intoxication such that he or she would be in danger of causing injury to himself or herself or injury or damage to another person or the property of another person.

In Dickerson, the Court of Appeal had occasion to comment on the standard of care set out in section 39. The Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the standard is breached by simply overserving a patron to the point of intoxication. The Court held that section 39 requires a risk assessment by the commercial establishment. The plain and ordinary meaning of the section describes the level of overservice that attracts liability because of the risk it creates. The overservice must produce the patron’s intoxication or increase it sufficiently that the patron will be in danger of injuring another person. Section 39 requires only that the risk of injury be reasonably foreseeable, not that the type or kind of injury actually suffered be reasonably foreseeable. In addition, this section requires only that there be a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to another person, not that the person injured be within the category of persons foreseeably at risk.

Those involved in tavern liability cases before juries may want to review this decision as a useful precedent for the charge to a jury in a tavern case, as well as the appropriate questions to be put to the jury.

D&O Insurance: The Policy Prevails

The Ontario Courts have reiterated the old insurance law adage that the wording of a policy prevails.

In Dunn v. Chubb Insurance, 2011 ONCA 36, the Court of Appeal recently upheld an application judge's decision requiring the insurer Chubb to pay 90% of certain defence costs of the respondents Dunn and Beatty, pursuant to a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy.

This proceeding arose out of allegations against Dunn and Beatty, former Nortel directors and/or officers.  They allegedly committed some "Wrongful Acts" (a term defined in the policy) in 2001 and then again in 2003.  The policy was a "claims made" policy and covered the period 2001. 

The insurer Chubb agreed to provide defences for Dunn and Beatty for proceedings relating to the 2001 conduct.  However, the insurer refused to pay the full defence costs for other proceedings arising out of both the 2001 and 2003 conduct.  The insurer argued that it was not responsible for the defence costs to the extent that those costs relate exclusively to the 2003 conduct.

There was however in the policy a special endorsement requiring the insurer to pay 90% of defence costs where there is a claim that includes both covered and uncovered matters.  However, the insurer took the position that the claims still had to fall within the period of 2001 and that the endorsement applied to allegations against insureds of wrongful conduct engaged in by an insured which is excluded from coverage, e.g. allegations of wrongful conduct in some capacity other than as a director and/or officer.

In the result, the application's judge and the Court of Appeal agreed that the endorsement in the policy applies and that the insurer is to pay 90% of defence costs per the terms of the endorsement.

This case emphasizes once again the importance of the terms of the policy itself.

Negligent Supervision of Children

Can parents or grandparents be liable for negligently supervising children in their care?

In Connolly (Litigation guardian of) v. Riopelle, [2010] O.J. No. 5798 (S.C.J.), the eight year old plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The defendant driver brought a third party claim against the boy’s grandfather, alleging that the grandfather was negligent in his supervision of the child and this caused or contributed to the accident. The child was visiting his grandparents’ home and was left outside to play alone when the accident occurred.

The grandfather brought a motion to strike the claim. He alleged that the child had been taught appropriate safety rules, was generally well behaved and did not require a greater level of vigilance than other children his age.

The motion was dismissed.

The Court held that is was open to the trier of fact to conclude that the grandfather ought to have looked out from time to time to ensure the child was adhering to the rules that were set, and there was an absence of evidence as to the accepted standard of care of other caregivers in the neighbourhood where the accident occurred.

Justice James concluded that the question of negligent supervision was better assessed in a trial setting.

Threshold

Tyrell v. Bruce, [2010] O.J. No. 5245 (S.C.J.).

The defendants brought a motion alleging that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold pursuant to section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff was taken to hospital the night of the accident and released. He did not see his family doctor for 2 months. He continued taking courses at college and worked a telemarketing job and at a convenience store for a period of time. Over the years, he saw several health care providers and reported to them complaints of pain in his head, neck, shoulders, back, legs, knees and ankles. Various x-rays and MRIs showed no other evidence of injury other than soft tissue strain and sprain. The court held that most of the medical evidence relied on subjective reporting by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not a believable person. The plaintiff recorded four rap music videos which had been placed on YouTube which showed him able to walk and move about without difficulty. His explanation was that it was a good day for him.

The court found that the plaintiff claimed to be injured when it suited him; for example, when he was receiving Ontario Disability Support Program Benefits. On the other hand, when he ran into a legal problem with the criminal justice system he got a letter from the health care provider to say that he was financially independent and working.

The court held that the plaintiff had not proven on a balance of probabilities that he had a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Credibility of the plaintiff is extremely important. Tyrell shows that presenting facts from a variety of sources, such as medical records, social services records, social networking and the internet can go a long way in assisting the defence.