Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner

29th May 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner

Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a commercial garage owed a duty of care to a teenager who had broken into the garage and stole a car. The teenager was injured after the car was involved in a crash. He sued the commercial garage for negligence.

Saro Turner is a Partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, a prominent Vancouver personal injury law firm. He can be found at @saroturner online.

We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Saro describes the four elements of a negligence lawsuit – the duty of care, the standard of care, causation and damages. It is Tort Law 101! Saro also tells people who have suffered losses what they should look for when choosing a personal injury lawyer.

1:20 – An overview of the facts of the case. In brief, two drunk teenagers steal a car from a commercial garage.  There is a car crash. One of the boys suffers a brain injury. He sues the garage.

2:41 – When you’re making out a claim of negligence what does the plaintiff have to establish? In brief, you have to establish a duty of care, a standard of care, causation and damages.

5:45 – What is a duty of care?

13:20 – What is a standard of care?

16:51 – What is causation?

19:45 – What are damages?

24:40 – What things should someone look for in a personal injury lawyer? If someone has been injured, how should they select their lawyer?

 

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 4 – Rankin v. JJ (The Duty of Care) with Saro Turner  »

Read more ›

Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone

2nd Apr 2018 Comments Off on Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone

Last updated on May 18th, 2018

Doez v. Facebook is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause.  The case involved a class action lawsuit brought in British Columbia alleging that Facebook’s Sponsored Stories breached their privacy.  Facebook argued that because its Terms of Use stated that users had to litigate any claims in California that the British Columbia courts lacked jurisdiction.

Christopher Rhone is a Partner at Branch MacMaster LLP Barristers & Solicitors. He represented Ms. Doez, the plaintiff, at the Supreme Court.

0:30 – The distinction between civil and commercial litigation.

1:50 – Could Ms. Douez sue Facebook in British Columbia despite its Terms of Service specifying that people would have to litigate disputes in California?

3:30 – Why is Ms. Douez arguing that Facebook breached her privacy rights under British Columbia law? What was Facebook’s Sponsored Stories product?

9:40 – An overview of the Pompey test for determining forum selection clauses, which consists of the following two steps.  First, the party must show that a form selection clause is clear and enforceable and that it applies to the cause of action before a court. If this is the case, then second, the other party must show strong cause for why a court should not follow the forum selection clause Reasons to not can include public policy, fairness, convenience, etc.

16:00 – What impact did the size of Facebook have on the Supreme Court’s decision? What is the scope of the ruling? Should people assume that they can sue large, multinational e-technology companies in British Columbia?

 » Read more about: Law Cans Episode 1 – Douez v. Facebook (Forum Selection Clauses) with Chris Rhone  »

Read more ›