|
Torts - Negligence - Appeals. T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd.
In T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an OLA-negligence appeal, this brought against the dismissal of an action where the court held that "the owner of the land owed no duty to warn users" - here to "stay in the centre of the bridge".
Here the court considered appellate SOR applicable to some issues of negligence law:[27] In negligence actions, the application of the standard of care and the determination of causation are questions of mixed fact and law: Walters v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 53, 136 O.R. (3d) 53, at para. 31, leave to appeal refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 100. The standard of review applicable to questions of mixed law and fact where there is an extricable error in principle is correctness. In the absence of extricable legal errors, questions of mixed law and fact are reviewable on the palpable and overriding error standard. The standard of review on findings of fact is palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 36. . Ward v. Landmark Inn Leasing Corp. et al.
In Ward v. Landmark Inn Leasing Corp. et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a plaintiff's appeal, this from a Small Claims settlement contract case.
Here the court considers the appellate SOR for some issues of negligence:[32] With respect to issues involving the determination of negligence, identifying a duty of care and its breach invites a standard of correctness. On the other hand, applying the facts to the arguments of negligence requires a palpable and overriding error before the appeal can succeed. Unless an erroneous finding of negligence rests on an incorrect statement of the legal standard, requiring a standard of palpable and overriding error for findings of negligence reinforces the proper relationship between appellate and trial courts: see Housen, at paras. 30-31.
|
