A toxicologist's report suggested the driver had been drinking at the club: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a claim against a Brampton nightclub for allegedly overserving alcohol to an impaired driver involved in a 2013 car crash can proceed to trial.
A woman injured in the accident initially sued the two drivers involved in the crash. She later amended her claim to include the nightclub, arguing that it had served alcohol to one of the drivers while he was already impaired. She sued the property owner and nightclub’s directors separately, alleging they improperly shielded the nightclub from liability and failed to secure adequate insurance.
The Superior Court ruled that the nightclub must face trial on the overservice allegation, finding sufficient evidence to support a claim under the Liquor Licence Act and common law negligence. The court noted that while no direct witness testified to seeing the driver consume alcohol at the nightclub, a forensic toxicologist’s report suggested he had been drinking at the venue. The court found that the toxicologist’s opinion, along with evidence that the driver was at the nightclub before the accident and later pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm, established a genuine issue for trial.
The court dismissed the claims against the property owner and the directors, finding no basis to hold them personally liable for the nightclub’s alleged wrongdoing. It ruled that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil, emphasizing that ownership of both the nightclub and the property was not enough to impose liability. The court also ruled that the claim against the directors for failing to secure insurance was statute-barred because the plaintiff filed it outside the applicable limitation period.
The court dismissed the request to force the property owner and the directors to return profits allegedly earned through misconduct, finding that the disgorgement of profits is not an independent cause of action. However, the court allowed the possibility of such a remedy against the nightclub if the trial proved negligence.
