RIOUX v MATTHEWS

The Applicant sought summary dismissal of the Respondent’s claim. The Application was initially heard by an Applications Judge, who granted the Application and dismissed the Respondent’s claim. The Respondent then appealed the decision.

The matter concerns a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the Applicant was the owner of the vehicle in question and a passenger. The Respondent was also a passenger in the vehicle. A third individual was driving the vehicle (the “Driver”). The main issue in dispute was whether the Applicant had given the Driver permission to operate the vehicle. The Court canvassed the relevant caselaw and noted that previous decisions indicated the Applicant bore the onus of showing the Driver did not have permission to operate the vehicle; and if it was determined that the Driver did not have permission to operate the vehicle, the Applicant would not be liable for any damage or loss resulting from the Driver’s operation of the vehicle.

Justice Brookes upheld the summary dismissal of the Respondent’s claim under Rule 7.3, which permits the Court to determine whether a case can be fairly resolved without a Trial or if there remains a genuine issue requiring adjudication. Applying the test established in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49, the Chambers Judge found no genuine issue requiring a Trial. The record established that Driver was not given permission, either expressly or impliedly, to operate the Applicant’s vehicle.

In looking to the facts of the matter, the Applicant, the Respondent, and the Driver were all taking part in a cross-country trip. The understanding between the individuals was that the Applicant would drive for the first half of the trip, and the Respondent would drive for the second half of the trip. The Driver was not expected to drive at all, as they did not have a valid driver’s license. Half-way through the trip, the Applicant stopped the car and told the Respondent that the keys were available when they wanted to start driving. The Applicant then went to sleep in the backseat of the car. The Driver then began to operate the vehicle and promptly crashed the car. The evidence before the Court was clear and apparent that the Applicant did not consent to the Driver operating the vehicle, and in fact the plan had expressly excluded the Driver from operating the vehicle.

Given that the Driver was operating the vehicle without the Applicant’s consent, the Applicant could not be found liable for the losses and damages that occurred as a result of the Driver’s operation of the vehicle. As such, the Court ultimately held that summary dismissal was appropriate in the circumstances.