Supreme Court of Canada
Sikora v. Asbestonos Corp. Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 115
Date: 1974-02-12
Edmund Sikora (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Asbestonos Corporation Limited and Michel Rioux (Defendants) Respondents.
1974: February 1; 1974: February 12.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
Damages—Quantum—General damages fixed by Court.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario setting aside the verdict of a jury and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed; with the consent of counsel, general damages fixed in terms of s. 47 of the Supreme Court Act R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19.
P. Jewell, Q.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.
D. Goudie, Q.C., for the defendants, respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—The issue in this appeal is the quantum of general damages to which the appellant is entitled as a result of injuries suffered through the admitted negligence of the respondent Rioux while driving a motor vehicle owned by the co-respondent, Asbestonos Corporation Limited. The general damages were assessed by a jury at $45,000. The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside this verdict and ordered a new trial as to the general damages on the ground that (in its words) “the evidence taken at its highest does not justify a verdict in this amount [which is] out of all proportion to the nature and kind of the injuries suffered.”
In Ontario, when the Court of Appeal proposes to set aside a jury’s verdict on damages, as being either extravagantly high or unjustifi-
[Page 116]
ably low, it cannot itself proceed to reassess them unless counsel consent and, in the absence of consent of all concerned, there must be a new trial on damages. Protraction of proceedings in personal injury cases, with its attendant costs, where damages alone are in issue, ought to be avoided. This Court, being empowered under s. 47 of its constituent Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, to make the order which the Court of Appeal should have made, invited the consent of counsel to have it fix the general damages if it should be of opinion that the Court of Appeal rightly set aside the jury’s verdict. Counsel for the parties accepted the invitation and gave their consent.
Having had the benefit of a full argument by counsel on the nature, extent and probable duration of the injuries suffered by the appellant, and on the factors that ought properly to be considered in a once-and-for-all assessment of the damages that the appellant should recover for those injuries, and, notwithstanding that the verdict in question is that of a jury, we are all of the opinion that the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the verdict as being inordinately high. No good purpose will be served in reviewing the evidence and the considerations that lead us to agree with the Court of Appeal. This case involves a particular set of facts whose elaboration can have no bearing on any other case, and there are no principles of law raised by those facts; there is only the application of judgment as to the propriety of the jury’s assessment. Acting on counsel’s consent, we assess the general damages at $20,000. The special damages were agreed upon at $1,130. There will, accordingly, be judgment for the plaintiff appellant against the defendants for $21,130. The plaintiff is entitled to costs of the trial and the defendants to their costs in the Court of Appeal. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.
[Page 117]
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Solicitors for the plaintiff appellant: Ricketts, Farley, Lowndes & Jewell, Toronto.
Solicitors for the defendants, respondents: Thomson, Rogers, Toronto.
Email this Content