Canada: Case Summary: Woitas v. Tremblay

Last Updated: August 29 2018
Article by Field LLP


In a chain reaction series of rear end accidents, following vehicles are presumed to be negligent for rear end collisions and the fact that a driver has to stop for an accident in front of him will be no defence. Drivers of vehicles which manage to stop without collision will not be negligent.

Woitas v. Tremblay, 2018 ABQB 588, per Wachowich, Master [4287]


On January 26, 2012, two rear-end accidents occurred on Highway 2 southbound, north of Leduc, Alberta. It was rush hour and traffic was backed up in the right lane of three southbound lanes, because of traffic in that lane waiting to exit to the right for the Nisku turnoff. Traffic in the other lanes were proceeding at slower than highway speed as drivers changed lanes, jockeying to make their way through the traffic.

In Accident 1, Tremblay was forced to stop and managed to do so without impacting the vehicle in front of her. Unfortunately, the Defendant Bevans following her was unable to stop in time and rear ended the Tremblay vehicle.

In Accident 2 the Defendant Dechant stopped suddenly in the left lane to avoid Accident 1 in front of him, with success. Following Dechant was Edmundson driving a prison van taking prisoners to Red Deer. Edmundson was initially in the middle lane and claimed that he was forced to change into the left lane to avoid collision with a black truck in front of him. He checked his side mirrors to ensure he would not be cutting off a following driver in the left lane and made his lane change. When he looked in front of him again the black truck was in front of him again and had slammed on its brakes suddenly. Edmundson had to choose between rear ending that vehicle and driving into the ditch. He chose the former and collided with the rear of the Dechant vehicle, injuring the passenger Plaintiff Woitas.

Dechant argued that the accident was caused by the negligence of Tremblay and Bevans (involved in Accident 1) and Dechant. He argued that Tremblay had braked too quickly, causing Accident 1 which, in turn caused Accident 2 when Dechant "cut off" Edmundson. Edmundson also argued that he had reacted in the agony of the moment.

Tremblay, Bevans and Dechant applied for summary dismissal of the claims against them. Woitas claimed to have an expert accident reconstructionist's report to assist her position but did not tender it arguing that trial expert reports should only become part of the record by consent or approval of the Court.

HELD: For the Defendants Tremblay, Bevans and Dechant; claims against them summarily dismissed.

The Court relied on the modified test for summary judgment whereby it is no longer required that there is a triable issue. The issue is whether or not the case can be decided on the basis of the evidence before the Court on a summary judgment application:
[29] Commenting on the Hryniak case [Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII)], our Court of Appeal stated in WP v Alberta, 2014 ABCA 404 (CanLII), [2014] AJ No. 1320 at para 26:
Summary judgment is therefore no longer to be denied solely on the basis that the evidence discloses a triable issue. The question is whether there is in fact any issue of "merit" that genuinely requires a trial, or conversely whether the claim or defence is so compelling that the likelihood it will succeed is very high such that it should be determined summarily.

[30] As our Court of Appeal stated in the 2015 decision, 776826 Alberta Ltd v Ostrowercha, 2015 ABCA 49 (CanLII), [2015] AJ No 118 at para 11:
Stated another way, in order for the non-moving party's case to have merit, there must be a genuine issue of a potentially decisive material fact in the case which cannot be summarily found against the non-moving party on the record revealed by the "fair and just process". The mere assertion of a position by the non-moving party in a pleading or otherwise, or the mere hope of the non-moving party that something will turn up at a trial, does not suffice. The key is whether the circumstances require a viva voce evidence in order to properly resolve the case: see Canada v Lameman, 2008 SCC 14 (CanLII) at paras 10 to 11, 2008 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 372.
The Court reviewed the law with respect to rear-end collisions. Drivers are to maintain a reasonable distance behind traffic in front of them:

[15] As can be seen from the legislation noted, it is a requirement of all drivers that they maintain a reasonable and prudent distance behind vehicles they are following.

[16] If a driver collides with another vehicle from behind (a "rear-ender") then the onus is on the following driver to prove that the collision did not occur as a result of his/her negligence. ( Moseley v Spray Lakes Sawmills (1980) Ltd, 1997 CanLll 14730 (AB QB) at para 55).

The Court held that the evidence was such that the case against Tremblay, Bevans and Dechant could be summarily resolved in their favour.
  • Edmundson was negligent for driving too closely or at too great a speed to stop in light of traffic conditions in front of him which should have been obvious to him but Tremblay, Bevans and Dechant were exonorated:
[17] Evidently Sheriff Edmundson was aware of the traffic conditions and the potential for slowing/stopping vehicles. A vehicle stopping quickly or even abruptly in stop and go traffic is not "an unexpected event, nor is it an event that occurs without justification" (Pryndik v Manju, 2001 BSSC 502 at para 22).

. . .

[19] The Respondent's position seems to be that Tremblay should not have braked heavily. But Tremblay obviously wished to avoid colliding with the vehicle that stopped suddenly in front of her. She discharged her duty of care by driving a proper distance such that she was able to stop without impacting any other vehicle.

[20] Similarly, Dechant, was able to avoid colliding with the Bevans vehicle. He was keeping a proper lookout and was able to safely stop two metres from the Bevans vehicle.

. . .

[22] Similarly, in the within matter, the Dechant vehicle was able to stop behind the Bevans vehicle without incident. The fact that Mr. Dechant was able to stop his car without issue, disposes of the issue. It is not relevant whether Bevans was involved in a collision or whether she was stopped for traffic. There is no liability on the part of Bevans with respect to the Incident.

. . .

[31] Review of the evidence supports the conclusion that the rear ending of the Tremblay vehicle by the Bevans vehicle is separate and distinct from accident #2 such that no actions or inactions of Bevans can be found to have caused or contributed to the second accident between the Edmundson and Dechant vehicles which resulted in the injuries suffered by Woitas.

[32] Equally, if Dechant was able to stop, the Respondent should have been able to stop and I do not see any conflicting evidence of merit. I am satisfied I can make a fair and just decision on the record before me.
  • The Court rejected Edmundson's argument that the agony of collision doctrine applied to him:
[35] None of these cases make this doctrine applicable to this case. They are cases where the Plaintiff's vehicles could not reasonably have expected the vehicle in front to brake quickly and the vehicle in front was not driving with due care and attention. I refer back to the Pryndik v Manju, 2001 BSSC 502 decision.

[36] Mr. Edmundson failed to use proper care and attention and carefully observe the traffic around him. He followed the Defendant Dechant too closely given the traffic conditions. The Defendant Dechant deposed that he estimated he had come to a complete stop for 3-5 seconds before Edmundson rear-ended him. Accident #2 occurred solely due to the negligence of Edmundson.

[37] The Defendants, Tremblay and Dechant, had to stop to avoid colliding with the vehicles stopped in front of them. They properly discharged their duty of care by driving at a proper distance such that they were able to stop without impacting that vehicle. The driving conditions were difficult and there was no negligence on the part of either Tremblay or Dechant, or in regard to this action, the Defendant Bevans. Each case depends on their facts and these facts do not support the application of the agony of the collision doctrine.

It was held that Woitas' expert evidence could have gone in by affidavit but, in any event, could not assist the Court in light of the facts:

[41] Witness's expertise can be established by Affidavit. A questioning on the Affidavit or a countering expert Affidavit may indicate a trial is required as the case cannot be decided on the record before the Court. In this case, I have no evidence from any possible witnesses, including any experts. Further, I see nothing in the facts which could be assisted by expert evidence. Second, the law is clear that on a summary judgment application the parties have to put their best evidence on the record. The continuance of the action is at stake and has to be treated accordingly.


This case is an excellent summary on the law of rear end collisions in general and of chain reaction rear end accidents in particular.

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

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

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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