Canada: Case Summary: Glover v. Leaky

Last Updated: May 17 2018
Article by Field LLP

IV. PRACTICE ISSUES

B. An admission of liability in an action is not a formal admission binding the party making it in a subsequent action relating to the same accident, but is only evidence in the second action to be attributed such weight as the Court decides. Thus, it is not necessarily an abuse of process for the defendant who admits liability in one action to deny it in another one relating to the same accident.

Glover v. Leaky, 2018 BCCA 56, per Willcock, J.A. [4271]

I. FACTS AND ISSUES

The Plaintiff Glover sued her husband Leaky for a motor vehicle accident where she was a passenger in a vehicle owned jointly by both of them but being driven by Leaky. Another passenger in the vehicle, Yeomans had sued both in a separate action where Glover and Leaky were defended jointly by counsel appointed by their insurer, ICBC.

In the Glover action, Leaky denied liability and successfully sought a jury trial.

Partway through the jury trial, Glover's counsel applied to have the Defendant Leaky's denial of liability in his Statement of Defence struck on the basis of abuse of process. She relied on the fact that in the Yeomans action, ICBC counsel defending both Glover and Leaky had admitted Leaky's negligence in his pleadings. The Yeomans action had settled. In the Glover action, the Plaintiff argued that it would be an abuse of process to allow Leaky to contest liability when he had admitted liability in his pleadings in another action involving the same accident. Glover's counsel had only recently discovered the admission in the Yeomans action partway through the Glover trial.

Glover's counsel suggested that the trial judge defer judgment on the application until the conclusion of the trial and Leaky's counsel agreed. The Court decided that if the verdict came in finding no liability against Leaky she would postpone entering judgment until after deciding the abuse of process issue. If the verdict found liability against Leaky, she would enter judgment. The trial continued. Plaintiff's counsel did not put Leaky's admission in the Yeomans action to him.

The jury found no liability against Leaky. The Court found that the Plaintiff's counsel had allowed the trial to continue without confronting Leaky about the admission due to a misunderstanding of what had been agreed to. The trial judge found that Leaky's denial of liability was an abuse of process in light of his admission in pleadings in the Yeomans action and, further concluded that the Plaintiff had not had a fair trial because her counsel had not confronted Leaky with it. She declared a mistrial.

The Defenant Leaky appealed, arguing that his denial of liability in the Glover action was not an abuse of process and that the trial judge had erred in declaring a mistrial.

II. HELD: Appeal dismissed but mixed result, holding the denial of liability was not an abuse of process but that the trial judge's discretion in ordering a mistrial should not be interfered with.

  1. The Court held that the issue of striking a pleading was a question of law such that the appellate standard was that of correctness.
  2. The Court held that an admission in one case is binding only with respect to that case. With respect to other, possibly related litigation it is admissible as evidence for that court in that other proceeding to determine how much weight to assign to it.

    1. While the admission in the pleadings of the Yeomans case was a formal admission in that case, it qualified only as an informal admission for the purposes of the Glover case.
    2. The court held:

[26] I am of the view that the appellant correctly says that there was no formal admission of liability in the present case; the respondent ought to have been required to establish that, in the circumstances of this case, advancing a liability defence amounted to an abuse of process. Further, in my view, there was no basis upon which the trial judge could properly have concluded that advancing a liability defence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[27] The pleadings that were said to be inconsistent were admissions in a different case. The formal admission made in the Yeomans Action is only effective to bind the defendant in that case (and, arguably, then, only insofar as the trial was in progress or imminent). Rule 7 7(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules explicitly states that "Unless the court otherwise orders, the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document specified in a notice to admit is deemed to be admitted, for the purposes of the action only ...." (emphasis added).

[28] As Goldie J.A. observed, in obiter, in Tunner v. Novak (1993), 1993 CanLII 2880 (BC CA), 76 B.C.L.R. (2d) 255 (C.A.), in the context of an attempt to preclude a litigant from withdrawing an admission after a summary trial, when a new trial was ordered:

27 Whether the admissions made by counsel survive the summary trial is another question. In view of the disposition I propose of this appeal it is not necessary to answer it. A cautionary note is sounded at p. 973 of The Law of Evidence in Canada, [2nd ed. (Butterworth's: Toronto, 1992) by Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant]:

Formal admissions are only binding for the purposes of the particular case in which they are made. However, there is a conflict of authority as to whether an admission made at the first trial continues to bind when a new trial is ordered. It is submitted that an admission for the purpose of dispensing with evidence is generally intended to apply only to the trial which is in progress or imminent and not in the differing circumstances that may prevail at a new trial. Accordingly, the admission is no longer binding at the new trial in the formal sense, but may be introduced as an informal admission. The party who made the admission may, therefore, lead evidence to explain or contradict the previous statement.

. . .

[30] The appellant acknowledges that a formal admission in an action is generally admissible in other proceedings, as an extrajudicial admission – an informal, as opposed to a formal admission – and may be used to impeach one who takes an inconsistent position. Informal admissions, however, are not conclusive. In Caviglia, as in the case at bar, the court considered the effect of an admission of liability in a prior action arising out of the same motor vehicle accident. The Court reviewed competing approaches to this question, and asked:

26 Should the policy basis which underlies the conclusive effect of a judicial admission be extended to separate proceedings as the American authorities appear to suggest? I conclude that an admission of liability in a proceeding is admissible in separate proceedings but not conclusive; the weight to be given to such an admission must be determined in the particular circumstances in which it was made.

27 In this case, I.C.B.C. acted for the defendant in both actions although two different counsel were appointed to represent her. It is difficult to believe that, when I.C.B.C. instructed counsel to admit liability in the second action in March 1991, it was unaware of all of the relevant facts, witness statements, and the denial of liability made in December 1989 in this action.

...

30 I conclude that the admission of liability in the second action is admissible in this action but, in the circumstances, the weight to be given to it is negligible. There is no evidence that [the plaintiff] relied upon that admission or was even aware of it at any material time prior to trial. The admission, while perhaps passively adopted by [the defendant], was not made on her instructions or with her knowledge and the substance of that admission is contradicted by her sworn evidence at trial.

[Emphasis added by the Court]

  1. Furthermore, the Court held that the doctrine of abuse of process, including with respect to re-litigation of the issues, is focused on preventing the administration of justice into disrepute. Re-mounting a defence can amount to an abuse of process but "[t]he court should consider the particular circumstances of the case and exercise its discretion to determine if allowing the plea to stand or the action to proceed 'will enhance or detract from the effectiveness of the adjudicative process as a whole'" (para. 36).
  2. In this case, it was held that allowing Leaky's denial of liability to stand in his pleadings in the Glover case did not amount to an abuse of process:

[40] I agree with the appellant's submission that it is important that the Yeomans Action was settled before trial. Pleadings are rarely struck as an abuse of process on the ground of relitigation unless the prior pleading has led to a judgment (which is not the case here). Even where the prior litigation has resulted in a judgment, the courts have been cautious in our application of the abuse of process doctrine to prevent relitigation: see R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII), and the cases cited therein.

[41] Here, as in Caviglia, there had been no prior adjudication of the issue in question and thus the finality principle is not engaged. The jury was not reviewing evidence that had resulted in an earlier decision. No resources were wasted. There is no basis to conclude that the jury verdict would undermine the integrity of the administration of justice.

[42] The respondent's counsel placed no weight upon the prior admission in the manner in which the litigation in this case was handled. The prior admission did not mislead or confuse the respondent's counsel. The appellant has not reaped any advantage from the inconsistent pleading, nor were the pleadings a fraud on the court.

. . .

[45] The appellant says the approach he urges upon the Court is not only consistent with the authorities but consistent with good practice insofar as it encourages parties to make admissions and to settle claims where they should be settled, leaving them to determine where and when they wish to litigate liability. The rule binding a litigant to admissions is intended to prevent relitigation and underline the finality of judgments; the appellant says it is not offended by his approach. I agree.

[46] In my opinion, the trial judge erred in finding that the defendant had abused the process of the court simply by denying his negligence in the action at bar after admitting liability and settling another action arising out of the accident in question

  1. Of note, the Court held that the admission drafted by the Glover/Leaky counsel in the Yeomans case, as an opinion of counsel, does not prove that his clients' "know" that any other position is false:

[44] It is also significant that the inconsistent plea is not a positive averment, but simply a responsive statement. It cannot be said that the appellant, by denying liability in these proceedings, was pleading facts known to be untrue. As the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted in Mahoney at para. 21: "An opinion of solicitors based on their belief that there is strong evidence to support a proposition does not result in the client thereby 'knowing' that any other position is false."

  1. The Court decided not to interfere with the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial, noting that "[t]he granting of a mistrial is an exercise of discretion that is not to be interfered with lightly" (para. 50):

[52] While it is clear, in my view, that there was no impropriety in this case, and certainly no blameworthy conduct on the part of the appellant, there was a basis upon which the trial judge could reasonably conclude that the course of justice had been affected by trial irregularities. It was certainly the case that the irregularity in question may have influenced the verdict of the jury (given that the case law acknowledges that a prior informal admission is admissible and may be used to cross-examine a party). It cannot be said with certainty that a properly instructed jury acting reasonably would necessarily have reached the same result if the appellant had been cross-examined on the prior admission. That is the test described in Anderson v. Maple Ridge (District) (1992), 1992 CanLII 2389 (BC CA), 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 68 (C.A.); Jennings Estate v. Gibson (1994), 96 B.C.L.R. (2d) 342 at para. 25 (C.A.); and Tsoukas v. Segura, 2001 BCCA 664 (CanLII) at para. 73.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions