On August 23, 2014, Shawna Biegel experienced a severe bicycle accident in Banff. She was launched over the handlebars of her bike, knocking herself unconscious and suffering a significant brain injury. Biegel had no memory of how the accident occurred, and there were no eyewitnesses.

At the time, the defendants, Trotter and Morton Limited, Bluebird Contracting Services Ltd, and the Town of Banff, were performing construction work on a roadway adjacent to the pathway where Biegel was cycling. Biegel alleged that loose gravel from this construction created the hazard that caused her accident.

Initially, the case was summarily dismissed by an applications judge (Biegel v Trotter and Morton Limited), largely based on Biegel’s inability, during questioning, to identify specifically gravel or any other hazard as the cause of her accident. The judge concluded that her testimony regarding gravel or divots was speculative, based on assumptions drawn from her injuries rather than observed facts.

Biegel appealed the summary dismissal decision, and a chambers judge reversed it in an unpublished decision. The chambers judge found that the applications judge erred by relying only on questioning evidence and neglecting other significant evidence. Important additional evidence included:

• Statements made by Ms. Biegel shortly after the incident explicitly indicating that she encountered gravel.
• Email correspondence from a Bluebird project manager shortly after the incident, confirming Ms. Biegel’s account of riding into loose gravel.
• An investigator hired by Bluebird concluded independently that loose gravel contributed to the incident.

The chambers judge concluded that due to this conflicting evidence, the hazard question could not fairly be resolved summarily, necessitating a trial for a complete evidentiary record.

The defendants further appealed the chambers judge’s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

What the Court Said

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge's decision, dismissing the defendants' appeal. The court found no reviewable error by the chambers judge in both procedural and substantive aspects of the decision:

• Procedural Scope: The chambers judge appropriately limited the appeal to the hazard issue based on the defendants' stated lack of readiness to argue broader issues during the appeal hearing. The court noted that this procedural decision preserved the defendants’ opportunity to address unresolved issues later without unnecessarily delaying the current proceedings.
• Substantive Assessment: The Court of Appeal affirmed that the chambers judge correctly identified significant factual disputes concerning the presence of loose gravel and its causative role in Ms. Biegel’s accident. The appellate court agreed that these issues were inherently unsuitable for summary determination and required a trial for proper resolution.

Takeaways

This case underscores key factors courts consider when assessing summary dismissal applications, particularly the importance of a full trial in resolving factual disputes, the need for a comprehensive evidence review, and the holistic approach taken in weighing all available evidence.

• Factual disputes typically require trials: Courts prefer full trials to resolve complex factual disputes, especially regarding causation and liability in injury claims. Summary dismissal applications are unlikely to succeed when conflicting evidence exists on a material point.
• Comprehensive evidence review: It is crucial for parties and their counsel to evaluate all available evidence, including statements made soon after an incident and independent investigative findings, rather than narrowly focusing on evidence favourable only to their case.
• Weighing all evidence fairly: Courts assess evidence holistically, rather than dismissing claims solely based on gaps in direct testimony. Independent findings, contemporaneous records, and surrounding circumstances are all critical in determining liability.

Field Law can help assess the strength of your evidence and determine the merits of a summary dismissal application. Contact Jordan Lalonde in Calgary, Christine Pratt in Edmonton, or any member of our Insurance or Litigation Groups for guidance and support.

Link to decision: Trotter and Morton Limited v Biegel, 2024 ABCA  312