A review of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Desrochers v. McGinnis, 2024
By: Thomas Russell
Introduction
This is a case of a horrible all-terrain vehicle accident that resulted in a life changing injury for a young woman. The resulting litigation required the Court of Appeal to rule on liability of both the owner and operator of a vehicle to a third-party, where control of the vehicle had been handed over to that third-party.
Background
Megan Desrochers was 24 years old at the time of the accident.[1] She was spending the weekend with her boyfriend, Partrick, and his family, who owned a farmhouse on a secluded County Road.[2] Partrick’s father owned All-Terrain Vehicles (“ATVs”), which were used by Patrick and Megan to get around.[3]
Megan did not have a driver’s license, and only learned how to drive an ATV from Patrick when she first started visiting his family farmhouse.[4]
On the evening of July 29, 2024, Megan and Patrick were driving the ATVs down the secluded County Road without helmets. Megan drove ahead of Patrick, beyond a rise in the road and out of sight of Patrick.[5] On the other side of this hill, the road took a sharp 90-degree turn.[6] Patrick claimed that upon traversing the hill, he found that Megan had missed the turn, driving off the road and colliding with a tree.[7]
As a result of this collision, Megan suffered a very serious brain injury.[8] Megan, through her litigation guardians, subsequently pursued damages against Patrick and his parents.[9]
Lower Court
The Plaintiffs claimed that Patrick and his parents were liable to Megan for negligence.[10] Further, the Plaintiffs advanced a claim under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act (the “HTA”) against Patrick’s father, as the owner of the ATV. Section 192(2) seeks to establish liability against the owner of a motor vehicle for damages sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle, with some exceptions.[11]
At the trial, the Trial Judge dismissed the claim in negligence against Patrick’s parents, and the claim under the HTA against Patrick’s father.[12]
Patrick appealed the Trial Judge’s decision on the basis that the requisite standard of care and causation had not been established to find liability in negligence.[13] The Plaintiffs also cross-appealed, arguing that Patrick’s parents were liable in negligence, and that Patrick’s father was liable under the HTA.[14]
Court of Appeal Decision on Patrick’s Liability
The Court of Appeal first went into great detail on why the requisite duty of care and causation existed to ground the finding of liability in negligence against Patrick.
(1) Patrick Owed Megan a Duty of Care
The Court of Appeal held that the previously recognized duty of care that exists whenever a person allows another individual to operate a motorized vehicle where they knew or should have known that the person was unfit to operate the vehicle safely, should extend to the operation of an ATV.[15]
Furthermore, The Court of Appeal found that, based on Megans lack of skill and the dangers of the sharp turn in the road, it was reasonably foreseeable that Megan was unable to operate the ATV safely, without risk of injury.[16]
(2) Patrick Breached the Standard of Care
Second, the Court of Appeal endorsed the analysis from Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1999 to determine whether there was a breach of the standard of care, which allows the Court to ask what would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person in the same circumstances.[17]
The Court of Appeal found that, based on the facts of the case, including Megan’s lack of experience or training with ATVs, Patrick’s lack of any warning or direction regarding the sharp turn, and Patrick’s personal knowledge of Megan, it was open to the Trial Judge to find that Patrick had breached the standard of care. [18]
(3) Patrick’s Breach of the Standard of Care Caused Megan’s Injuries
Finally, the Court of Appeal endorsed the decision of the Trial Judge, who found that the most probable explanation for Megan leaving the road and hitting the tree was her inability to properly manage the curve in the road, and that this was due to Patrick’s negligence.[19]
On this basis, the Court of Appeal found that negligence had been established against Patrick for the injuries suffered by Megan.
Court of Appeal Decision on Patrick’s Parents Liability
The Court of Appeal then went on to consider the cross-appeal by the Plaintiffs, who argued that Patrick’s parents were incorrectly found not to be liable under both the tort of negligence and the Highway Traffic Act.[20]
(1) Liability under Negligence
The Plaintiffs’ argument took issue with the way the Trial Judge interpreted the factual evidence in coming to the conclusion that Patrick’s parents had not breached their duty of care owed to Megan.[21] The Court of Appeal held that, absent palpable and overriding error on the part of the Trial Judge, there was no basis to interfere with how the Trial Judge interpreted the evidence.[22] The Court of Appeal dismissed this Cross-Appeal.[23]
(2) Liability under the Highway Traffic Act
At this point, the Court of Appeal finally found fault with the decision of the Trial Judge, stating that the Trial Judge erred in law in determining that Patrick’s father was not liable for Megan’s damages under s. 192(2) of the HTA.[24]
192(2) of the HTA states:[25]
The owner of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway, unless the motor vehicle or street car was without the owner’s consent in the possession of some person other than the owner or the owner’s chauffeur. [Emphasis added]
192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act creates liability for the owner of a vehicle where they turn the vehicle over to another party who subsequently engages in a negligent act causing damages.
In this case, the Court of Appeal held that the issue of liability turned on the proper interpretation of s. 192(2); namely, whether “negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle” includes the negligent act of turning over the vehicle to another person unfit to drive it in the circumstances.[26]
The Court of Appeal held that the jurisprudence in Canada supports a wide interpretation of s. 192(2), bearing in mind that its purpose is to broaden the liability of the owner of the vehicle.[27]
On this basis, The Court of Appeal held that Patrick’s negligent acts and omissions in turning the driving of the ATV over to Megan properly constituted “negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle under s. 192(2) of the HTA.[28]
In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal stressed that the objective of s. 192(2) is to protect the public by imposing responsibilities on the owner of a motor vehicle for the careful management of the vehicle.[29]
Conclusion and Takeaways
The Court of Appeal dismissed Patrick’s appeals entirely. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff’s Cross-Appeal regarding negligence as against Patrick’s parents. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the Cross-Appeal against Patrick’s father, finding that an expansive interpretation of s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act should have been applied.[30]
This case is important for a number of reasons. First, the Court of Appeal recognized that the duty of care related to handing over control of a motor vehicle to someone unfit to take control, extends to ATVs and possibly other vehicles.
Secondly, the Court of Appeal provided a broad summary of the proper principles to establish negligence in motor vehicle cases.
Finally, the Court of Appeal endorsed a broad interpretation of s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, expanding liability of the owner of a vehicle when handing over operation of that vehicle to another party.
[1] Desrochers v. McGinnis, 2024 ONCA 63 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k2hvb> at para 8 [“Desrochers Court of Appeal”].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid at paras 1 – 2.
[9] ibid at para 3.
[10] Ibid at para 4.
[11] Ibid at para 4.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid at para 5.
[14] Ibid at para 39.
[15] Desrochers et al v. McGinnis et al, 2022 ONSC 5050 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jrr68> at para 85 [“Desrochers Trial Court”]; Desrochers Court of Appeal Supra Note 1 at paras 14 – 18.
[16] Desrochers Court of Appeal Supra Note 1 at para 20 – 22.
[17] Ibid at para 23, citing Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1999 CanLII 706 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 201, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fqpf> at para. 28.
[18] Desrochers Court of Appeal Supra Note 1 at paras 26 – 33.
[19] Ibid at paras 25, 33.
[20]Ibid at para 39.
[21] Ibid at para 43.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid at para 44 – 46.
[24] Ibid at para 47 – 52.
[25] The Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8., at s. 192(2).
[26] Desrochers Court of Appeal Supra Note 1 at para 49.
[27] Ibid at para 60.
[28] Ibid at paras 66 – 67.
[29] Ibid at para 68.
[30] Ibid at para 73.
