Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp., 2015 ONCA 6
On December 23, 2000, then 21-year-old Shaun Davis boarded a Greyhound bus in northern Ontario heading east from Calgary to spend Christmas with family in Nova Scotia.
About an hour into the trip, Davis left his seat to stand in the stairwell next to the bus driver. Davis requested that the driver stop because he thought some people on the bus wanted to hurt him. Davis was told to return to his seat by the bus driver, but ignored these requests. Then Davis lunged at the driver and grabbed the steering wheel.
The bus veered off the road and toppled onto its side. One person was killed and many of the 32 passengers were injured.
The passengers sued Davis, the bus driver, Greyhound, and two police officers who had interacted with Davis before he boarded this bus. Davis had met with police at the bus stop before the accident, stating that he was worried that people were trying to hurt him.
After a 60 day trial, the trial judge dismissed the action against all defendants other than Davis.
The passengers appealed, saying that the trial judge made a mistake in excluding the evidence of two experts - the first being a specialist in police training, and the second being an expert in bus safety.
The passengers argued that the police expert would have shown that competent police officers, upon noting that Davis was delusional or agitated, would have kept him off of the bus. Meanwhile, the bus safety expert would have demonstrated that a prudent driver, upon noting Davis standing close to him and in an agitated state, would have reduced his speed, perhaps avoiding this accident.
The Justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the passengers' appeal, and upheld the decision of the trial judge, who found that these experts were not needed to assist the trial judge in reaching his verdict.
Unnecessary expert evidence can be distracting, and where the conduct and duties of the police officers and the bus driver could be understood by the trial judge without expert assistance, the trial judge was within his rights to exclude evidence and rely upon his own understanding of the facts.
The standards required of a police officer when encountering a distressed individual were presented through training manuals at trial. Likewise, Greyhound's training standards, practices and procedures were also presented at trial.
This being the case, the trial judge could come to his own findings on whether the police and the bus driver acted appropriately. The trial decision was upheld and only judgement against Davis was entered.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
