Supreme Court of Canada Refused Leave to Appeal in Crossing Guard Case

On May 4, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal in the case of Saumur v Antoniak (“Saumur”). The City of Hamilton (the “City”), which was one of the defendants, sought leave to appeal from a November 2016 Ontario Court of Appeal decision affirming the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In the Court of Appeal decision, the Court addressed the subject of alleged contributory negligence by a minor (Dean Saumur) who was hit by a car when crossing an intersection with the crossing guard absent. At trial, negligence was apportioned equally as between the City and Luba Antoniak, who was the driver of the vehicle which struck Dean, with no contributory negligence being found as against Dean. In the Court of Appeal, the City argued that Dean was contributorily negligent in that he failed to look both ways before crossing the intersection. The Court of Appeal disagreed and dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court decision. With leave to appeal to the Supreme Court refused, the Saumur decision by the Court of Appeal remains an important reminder for charities and not-for-profits that deal with children, that negligent acts or omissions resulting in injury to children could result in substantial liability, and that courts may be reluctant to reduce such liability even in cases where the child arguably contributed to his or her own harm. For an in depth discussion of Saumur see Charity & NFP Law Bulletin No. 395.