Category: Social Host Liability

Cox et al. v. Ball et al., 2025 ONSC 199

The plaintiff was injured when the defendant Ball hit him in the head with his goalie stick during a hockey tournament held at the Fort Erie Leisureplex. Ball was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. The plaintiff sued Ball, along with the Town of Fort Erie (owner of the arena complex), Stoddard (tournament organizer), and Madison’s Pub (a pub that operates in the arena complex). Ball was noted in default. The remaining defendants brought motions for summary judgment on the basis that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable, and in the alternative, they did not breach the standard of care.

Justice Sweeny dismissed the motions, holding that this was not an appropriate case for summary judgment. Justice Sweeny found it was evident that not all evidence that the parties intended to call was before the Court. For example, there were no cross-examinations on two affidavits filed in support of the plaintiff because of scheduling difficulties, and two witnesses who initially spoke with representatives of the plaintiffs would not execute affidavits. Credibility was at issue. Given the issues in dispute and the state of the evidence before the Court on the motions, this was not a case where justice could be done by way of summary judgment – the situation required the full forensic machinery of a trial. Justice Sweeny noted that bifurcation may be beneficial given that the issues of liability were ripe for determination.

Jonas v. Elliott, 2020 ONSC 354

The plaintiff Jonas and the defendant Elliott were neighbours. In November 2014, the two were at a buck and doe party at a local facility owned by the defendant City of Stratford, and hosted by the defendant Goudy. Within a short time of their mutual attendance, Elliott saw his wife dancing with Jonas and proceeded to come up behind Jonas, grab his shoulder, twist him around and throw him to the ground. Jonas suffered a broken femur and required surgery. The defendant City of Stratford and Goudy sought summary judgment on the basis that they were not liable to the plaintiff because the loss was not reasonably foreseeable. Justice McArthur granted the summary judgment motion. His reasons focused on the “reasonable foreseeability of harm” and the case law on social host liability. In short, there was nothing occurring prior to the assault that should have alerted the successful defendants of the risk of an assault being reasonably foreseeable. Justice McArthur was critical of the plaintiff’s position, which was in essence an argument for strict liability on an occupier and a social host. The defendants’ success is also notable because it was admitted that there was not complete compliance with the municipal alcohol policy or social occasion permit.

Hummel v. Jantzi, 2019 ONSC 3571

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant driver following his departure from the defendant bar. The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant driver’s vehicle and had also attended the defendant bar on the evening of the accident. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was not seat belted and the defendant driver was driving 30 km/h over the posted speed limit. Both the plaintiff and defendant driver had blood alcohol levels over the legal limits for operation of a motor vehicle. At trial, liability was apportioned 80% to the defendant driver and 20% to the defendant bar. The plaintiff was found 25% liable for his failure to wear a seatbelt, for entering into a vehicle which he knew would be operated by an impaired driver, and for encouraging the driver to drive faster. The bar was found to be 20% responsible for the contributory negligence.