Warren Berg: 0:00

Good morning and welcome to the August edition of Ask the Lawyer across Alberta on Windspeaker Radio CFWE and CJWE. I'm your host, Warren Berg, and joining us this month, as usual, is Cynthia Carels of Weir Bowen LLP. And Cynthia, I see you have brought along a new voice to Ask the Lawyer.

Cynthia Carels: 0:17

We have. Indeed, it's always a pleasure to be here, Warren, and yes, I have a brand new colleague with me today, one of our articling students who's started with us recently. His name is Teddy Sanders, and Teddy has rejoined our firm after working as a summer student last year. In his short time with Weir Bowen, he's gained experience in a variety of practice areas, from medical malpractice to institutional sexual abuse and even battery claims, and in law school we understand Teddy's studies included tort law, which we're going to be talking about today, as well as advanced courses in constitutional law, international law and trial advocacy. So we are delighted to have him on board with Ask the Lawyer.

Teddy Sanders: 0:58

Very happy to be on the show.

Warren Berg: 0:59

Weir Bowen is an Edmonton-based law firm. However, their lawyers have represented clients across Alberta, in BC, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories and have been counsel in precedent-setting cases all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cynthia Carels: 1:12

Yeah, you know our firm really prides itself on helping individuals from across Canada to navigate very difficult periods in their lives and we consider ourselves to be mostly a plaintiff-focused firm. So you know, that's dealing with the victim side of lawsuits, and we're regularly working with individuals who may not ordinarily be interacting with the legal system. You know, overwhelmingly they're victims of someone else's wrongdoing and they never asked to be involved in lawsuits in the first place. So you know we do try to place a large emphasis on demystifying what can be fairly complex and laborious legal processes so that our clients can better understand what their legal options are and also to attain the compensation that they're going to need to move forward with their lives.

Warren Berg: 1:54

And that's why we have you and Teddy here, Cynthia, because what we have planned to discuss today is not exactly the easiest of topics, from both a conceptual and emotional standpoint. But before we get there, I know we've talked extensively in the past about Weir Bowen's reputation as a leader in complex medical malpractice cases. Are there any other practice areas that Weir Bowen is particularly known for?

Teddy Sanders: 2:17

Yeah, definitely, as you alluded to, Weir Bowen represents more medical malpractice clients than any other firm in Western Canada. However, we also deal with a variety of other types of personal injury claims, such as slip and falls, wrongful death claims, motor vehicle accidents, assaults, dog bites and product liability claims.

Cynthia Carels: 2:33

Yeah, and beyond personal injury, we also have a number of lawyers who have extended their practices into areas like disability claims or real estate wills and estates, insurance law and other areas as well. But in general, much of the work that we do relates to personal injury in one way or another, and some of these more tangential areas just help us to provide a fuller suite of services to our clients.

Warren Berg: 2:55

And that's good to know, I mean. So I understand that today we're going to be talking about some personal injury claims which may interest parents as everybody gears up to send their kids back to school.

Cynthia Carels: 3:05

Yeah, so it's timely to talk about this. Warren, pencils and erasers aren't the only things that parents need to be thinking about. As the school year fast approaches, and, as many parents know, this is also the time of year when kids are looking forward to getting back into all those routines of you know There's sports teams at school, playing on the playground with their friends, and even playtime can sometimes end in tears and, in some cases, bumps and bruises and even broken bones.

Teddy Sanders: 3:37

Yes and when injuries occur at school or during extracurricular activities, parents may be well advised to explore their legal options.

Cynthia Carels: 3:40

Yeah, so our conversation today isn't only about the bumps and bruises, which, for the most part, are obviously a totally normal part of childhood. That we certainly don't want to suggest is going to warrant litigation, but we will talk about some topics that do warrant investigations of litigation, and later on we're going to be discussing a very sensitive type of claim that unfortunately we do have to deal with, and that includes sexual assault in those institutional settings.

Warren Berg: 4:04

And this, of course, is a very sensitive topic. So here's a warning to our listeners and parents listening with young ones around. The second half of the show today is going to delve into some difficult subject matter that might not be appropriate for all of our audience members. But for the time being, let's get started with injuries that happen at school and during extracurricular activities.

Cynthia Carels: 4:28

Yeah, so that's a great place to begin so we can sort of set out the lay of the land when it comes to childhood injuries generally speaking. So, as many parents know, you know kids like to play and sometimes they're going to get hurt, and just as injuries are a totally normal part of growing up, worrying about your kids is a normal part of being a parent too, so naturally, whenever a child gets injured is a normal part of being a parent too. So naturally whenever a child gets injured, parents are going to ask who's to blame here for this and when the injury occurs at school or during extracurricular activities, the answer to that question isn't always that clear.

Warren Berg: 4:55

And other than contacting Weir Bowen LLP, of course. How exactly are parents supposed to know if somebody's at fault for their child's interest?

Cynthia Carels: 5:03

Yeah, that's a great question and, Warren, you and I have been doing this show together long enough that I think you can probably guess the answer.

Warren Berg: 5:11

there it's complicated.

Cynthia Carels: 5:12

Yeah, indeed, that is correct, it is complicated, and to determine whether someone is at fault, we need to turn to principles that we find within a branch of law called tort law. We talked about that right off the top there. So tort law is a system of legal principles involving trying to right the wrong or injustices that a victim might have suffered due to the acts or omissions of someone else. Now, not all wrongs are necessarily going to result in successful lawsuits, but this is why we bring along recent law school grads. So, Teddy, how about you take a shot at explaining the principles of tort law that apply to the injuries we're going to talk about today?

Teddy Sanders: 5:51

Sure, Cynthia, I'll do my best. Generally speaking, the majority of claims involving injuries at school and most types of personal injury claims are claims in negligence. For the victim or plaintiff to succeed in a negligence claim, they have to prove three things First, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Second, that the defendant breached the standard of care. And third, that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Warren Berg: 6:15

Okay, so from a legal standpoint, what are duties and standards of care?

Teddy Sanders: 6:26

Well, a duty of care is really just a legal obligation imposed on a person or some other legal entity to take responsible, to take rather reasonable care to ensure someone else's safety.

Teddy Sanders: 6:32

If they fail to meet that duty or to act reasonably, they might be liable if the other person gets injured as a result. Now, a duty of care can come in many different forms. For instance, the duty of care owed by schools and their staff is a common law duty of care. This means that to determine the scope of this duty, the court will look to pass legal cases or precedents. Alternatively, a duty of care may be prescribed by statutes or written laws. In Canada, written laws supersede the common law. This means that where there is a written law that directly applies to a legal issue, that law will take precedence over past case law which may also speak to the same legal issue. In Alberta, for example, the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a statutory duty of care on all occupiers of any premises to take reasonable care to ensure that any visitors are reasonably safe when on those premises, and this statutory duty of care also applies to schools.

Cynthia Carels: 7:29

And just to further complicate things, the Occupiers Liability Act also provides that where an occupier provides reasonable warning of potential risks to a visitor, or where a visitor willingly accepts the risks of partaking in an activity on the occupier's premises, the occupier will no longer owe a duty of care to the visitor in respect of those specific risks. And we'll speak to that a little bit later on in the show when we're discussing those very pernicious permission slips that we get asked to sign, as well as those waivers of liability forms.

Warren Berg: 8:03

So, if I understand this correctly, if a kid gets hurt at school or some other place covered by the Occupiers Liability Act, does that mean the parent should sue?

Cynthia Carels: 8:12

Well, not necessarily. So we still have a long way to go in our legal analysis, and the next step is where the issue of that standard of care comes in.

Cynthia Carels: 8:21

So let's take the example of a child getting injured at school. You know, as we discussed before, there are those three parts to the successful action in negligence. Part one is the defendant has to owe that duty of care. Check on that, that's met where a child is injured at school, because schools obviously owe that common law duty of care to their students. Part two is that the defendant must have actually breached the standard of care. And so the question becomes well, what the heck is that?

Cynthia Carels: 8:46

So we like to conceptualize the standard of care as the things that a person or entity must do for all of those individuals to whom they actually owe that duty of care. So in lawsuits revolving around negligence, a defendant is only required to take reasonable care to protect students from harm that they can reasonably anticipate or foresee. So it's important to note here that the standard is reasonableness, it's not perfection. So this doesn't mean that literally every injury that happens at school is going to warrant a litigation. So for this reason, even though a school owes a duty of care to all of its students, it might not be liable where a student is injured in a freak accident or you know in some other way that the school could not have reasonably foreseen. So the takeaway here is that just because someone gets hurt at school doesn't necessarily mean that the school is automatically liable. The school is only going to be liable if the injuries were caused by their unreasonable conduct or conduct that fell beneath that standard of care.

Warren Berg: 9:46

All right, well, that almost makes sense.

Cynthia Carels: 9:49

What exactly?

Warren Berg: 9:50

is the standard of care? What is considered reasonable?

Teddy Sanders: 9:53

Well, warren, if I could give you a simple answer to that question, I'd probably be sitting on a yacht in Greece right now. The trouble is that what is considered reasonable is highly variable. It's context-specific and sometimes difficult to predict. When determining the standard of care, the court will ask the question what would a reasonable person do in the circumstances? Take, for example, someone who is having a heart attack. The standard of care to be met by an attending cardiologist in a hospital would be much different than that expected of, say, a lifeguard or a paramedic at a rec center.

Cynthia Carels: 10:24

Yeah, and in determining the standard of care it's ultimately up to the courts. So, depending on the case, judges might need assistance from lawyers or special experts and even the litigants themselves to determine what that standard should be. So the main takeaway here is that this concept of standard of care doesn't exist in a vacuum. We can't just look to a book and see what it says. You can't decide what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances without actually knowing what those circumstances are.

Teddy Sanders: 10:52

And in the case of injuries that happen in a school setting, a court might consider other factors like the age of the students, similar past incidents, complaints about unsafe conditions or the nature of the activity the student was engaging in when they were injured. It all depends on the case.

Warren Berg: 11:06

Yeah, that's a lot of variables. Maybe you can give our listeners a few examples to maybe explain how this all works in a school setting.

Teddy Sanders: 11:13

You know that's a great idea. Let's start with a simple one. Okay, let's say an elementary class is learning about ocean life and the teacher decides to bring in some bubble machines to create a real nautical Little Mermaid type vibe in the classroom. Yeah, think Ariel Little Mermaid. But her classroom has tile floors. The bubbles go up, they pop and the next thing you know there's soapy water all over the floor. Penny, an unsuspecting fourth grader, slips in the bubbly surface and breaks her wrist.

Warren Berg: 11:46

Ouch,

Cynthia Carels: 11:46

Ouch ouch indeed. So in this case the school is probably going to be liable for that student's injuries. It is entirely foreseeable that soapy bubbles are going to result in a slippery situation that is going to put kids at an elevated risk for a slip and fall injury. So for that reason it's likely a court would find that it was probably not a reasonable decision to use a bubble machine in a classroom with tile floors and a bunch of excitable fourth graders.

Warren Berg: 12:11

I agree. Now that doesn't sound all that complicated.

Cynthia Carels: 12:14

Okay, so that's setting our base level. Let's level up to something a little more complicated. So imagine it's recess and the kids are out on the playground and a student is swinging away on the swings. And and the kids are out on the playground and a student is swinging away on the swings and right as he reaches the pinnacle of his arc, a rusty link in one of the chains on the swing snaps and the poor boy plummets to the ground, bonks his head and winds up with a concussion. Now let's say that this school had a policy that required annual inspections of the playground equipment, and we'll even say that within that time period let's say 11 months before the inspection had been done and everything had passed and the next scheduled inspection is still a month away.

Warren Berg: 12:54

It seems like a tough one. Not much the school could have really done is there.

Teddy Sanders: 12:59

Well, that depends, Warren. The school was following their policy and they didn't detect any problems. But was the annual inspection policy reasonable? Maybe all the other schools in the district had a policy of monthly inspections. Maybe another swing had suffered a similar fate just a month earlier and no one at the school had thought to check to make sure that the rest of the swings were still in good condition. Had they done so, maybe they would have identified that this swing also had a chain in dire need of replacement.

Warren Berg: 13:26

So, even though the school didn't actually know there was a problem, maybe they ought to have known.

Cynthia Carels: 13:32

Exactly so. It's really important to remember that the risk does not necessarily have to actually be foreseen, it just has to be reasonably foreseeable. So that raises that question of what it ought to have known, and that concept of foreseeability is often a determining factor in these kinds of cases. It's not just about what the school did know. Rather, it is also what the school should have known or should have done.

Warren Berg: 13:57

Okay, so this is starting to make a little more sense. You mentioned the third part to the negligence test. Can you maybe speak a little bit more to that?

Cynthia Carels: 14:06

Yeah, okay. So the third element of this is the element of causation. So, just to review, we've discussed that duty of care that can come from the common law or from statutes. We've also discussed the standard of care, which is the standard of conduct that has to be met by someone who owes that duty of care. And again, that standard isn't perfection. It's only to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.

Cynthia Carels: 14:28

But the next step of the negligence analysis is to determine whether or not those acts or omissions of the defendant actually caused the plaintiff's injuries that we're commencing the litigation for. And this step, of course. So I've got to break it down into more parts, so it has two parts. First, we're going to have to prove that the defendant's action or inaction actually caused the injury, and then, secondly, the plaintiff is going to have to prove the extent of the injuries caused by that negligence. And this can be a lot more complicated than it seems at first blush. So again, it's helpful to use some examples.

Cynthia Carels: 15:05

So, under this principle, let's imagine another situation.

Cynthia Carels: 15:09

Imagine we've got a girl by the name of Lavinia and she's a very unlucky fifth grader who happens to bump her head a lot, and she happens to bump her head twice in one day on this day in question.

Cynthia Carels: 15:21

So first she falls and bumps her head while she's running to catch the school bus, and you know, this obviously happens to kids all the time. No one is necessarily to blame and she doesn't give it much thought, Thinking little of it. She continues on with her journey to school, only to fall and bump her head a second time when an old, rusty monkey bar that she is using at school snaps during recess. And a few days later she goes to the doctor and the doctor discovers yes, Lavinia has a concussion. Now it's obvious on these set of facts that the school breached the standard of care by allowing a student to use a rusty set of monkey bars that collapsed and fell apart. But what's less clear is how she actually sustained the concussion. Was it when she tripped while running for the school bus, or was it when she fell off the rusty monkey bars? Or perhaps, to complicate things, it could be a little combination of both.

Warren Berg: 16:16

Sounds like a really difficult question.

Teddy Sanders: 16:19

Sure is Warren. While the extent of a child's injuries is quite clear in this example, the cause of those injuries is much less certain In this case. If this case were to go before a judge, it would depend on all of the surrounding facts and opinions of doctors and other medical professionals, whether the injury happened on school property or while the student was running for the bus or possibly, to complicate things, a combination of the two.

Warren Berg: 16:43

This is really starting to get complicated.

Teddy Sanders: 16:46

Yes, indeed it is. Now let's consider another angle to this hypothetical. It's a well-known fact that brain injuries can lead to severe complications for children. While in some cases, a concussion may quickly resolve with no future complications, in other circumstances, a concussion can cause permanent and long-lasting consequences which may not be revealed until years after the injury. This is especially true in children because their brains are still developing, making concussions especially dangerous and even difficult to diagnose, particularly if the child has difficulty explaining what they are experiencing.

Cynthia Carels: 17:18

Yeah, and having raised a couple of kids myself, it can be really difficult as a parent to figure out what's causing all of those non-specific childhood complaints like I'm feeling gross or my tummy hurts or I'm tired, especially when those things are overlapping a concussion. So for this reason, traumatic brain injuries really should be treated with concern by parents and medical advice is definitely warranted. And it's not a bad idea to actually keep records of those concussions, because their effects can also compound with subsequent head injuries as well. So while initial symptoms might suggest that the injury had resolved while the child is in, let's say, elementary school, the true impact of a concussion or a traumatic brain injury might not reveal itself until the child is in high school or even into young adulthood.

Warren Berg: 18:04

Well, this is a lot of different things to consider. Kind of seems like running a personal injury lawsuit is like running a three-ring circus,

Cynthia Carels: 18:12

especially when you have lawyers involved. Yeah.

Cynthia Carels: 18:16

So, with that in mind, maybe we can try another more adventurous hypothetical to really put a cap on how circus-like this is. So let's talk about a field trip to the zoo.

Warren Berg: 18:26

I like the zoo. This sounds exciting, but before we get to that, maybe we'll let our listeners know how they can get in touch with Weir Bowen if they're looking for legal advice about a personal injury claim, and not just claims involving injuries at school, but for any type of personal injury claim, be it a motor vehicle accident or medical malpractice or something else.

Warren Berg: 18:50

What is the best way to connect with your firm.

Cynthia Carels: 18:52

So our website is a really great place to start. That's at weirbowen. com, to spell it out, w-e-i-r-b-o-w-e-n. com, and on our contact us page there's a form that you can fill out to send us an inquiry, and our intake team will make sure it gets to the right place. We also have a number of posts on our website that deal with many different legal issues that our firm commonly handles, and so these are a really great source of general information for people wondering, you know, whether or not they should be calling, and some practical advice about things that you can do in addition to contacting a lawyer.

Warren Berg: 19:19

And what if the internet is not an option?

Teddy Sanders: 19:21

Well, we also frequently get cold calls from people looking for legal advice. You can just call our main line at 780-424-2030, and our receptionist will put you in touch with someone on our team. Who knows, it could be me,

Cynthia Carels: 19:35

Could be!

Warren Berg: 19:35

This is

Warren Berg: 19:36

Ask the Lawyer. On Winspeaker Radio CFWE and CJWE, I'm your host, Warren Berg, and once again joining us today are Cynthia Carels and articling student Teddy Sanders of Weir Bowen LLP in Edmonton. Once again, that's W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N. Their phone number is 780-424-2030,. Online at weirbowen. com. Today we had been discussing some issues relating to injuries that happen in school settings, and now we're going to talk about taking a field trip to the zoo to find out what happens when kids get hurt during extracurricular activities?

Cynthia Carels: 20:10

Ooh, okay. So yes, so far we've been talking about school place injuries, but school isn't the only place that kids can get injured during the back-to-school season. Oftentimes, children are injured while taking part in extracurricular activities like school sports or daycare or musical theater, you name it. And when it comes to injuries that occur during these extracurricular activities, things can get even more complicated. So in this next example, we're going to try to show how the concept of foreseeability plays a role in determining liability for injuries that happen off of school property.

Cynthia Carels: 20:45

So for this example, I want listeners to imagine a group of students going on a field trip to the zoo.

Cynthia Carels: 20:50

Imagine, you know, the sun is shining brightly through those windows of a stinky school bus.

Cynthia Carels: 20:55

We've got sounds of delighted children and the scent of spray on sunscreen that's filling up the seats as it bumps down the road to its destination. There's a bunch of teachers and volunteer parents on their way to the zoo as well, and everyone is really excited, but obviously also a little bit nervous about all of the potential dangers that might lie ahead for this enthusiastic cohort of young kids. And once they arrive, the kids rush to see the zoo's main attraction. We're going to call her Lucy the hippo for no particular reason, and as they approach the hippo enclosure, lucy decides to put on a real show for the audience, and she decides to use her two hind legs to splash the children with all of the finest muck in the enclosure, and this is something that she's never done before. Just out of the blue, she decides to do this and, much to her surprise, things go a little too far when a rock gets launched, with all the muck hitting one of the kids on their head.

Teddy Sanders: 21:50

Now this situation is quite different than the soapy bubbles and broken swing examples we discussed earlier. While those examples involved unreasonable conduct on the part of school staff, this example is a freak accident that the school could never have reasonably foreseen prior to taking these kids on the field trip. Turning now to the zoo, it is unlikely that a court would find that its conduct fell below the standard of care either, assuming that the zoo was following best industry practices, both for the design of lucy's enclosure and its upkeep. It's unlikely that lucy the hippo, it's unlikely that Lucy's highly unusual act would be considered a reasonably foreseeable risk for which a reasonable zoo operator ought to take precautions.

Warren Berg: 22:31

And I've noticed that both you and Cynthia have used the word reasonably quite frequently when discussing the standard of care. Are there any other circumstances in which a defendant will be liable, even if they were acting reasonably?

Cynthia Carels: 22:44

Yeah, that's actually a very astute observation, especially for this particular example, because the legal term for what you've just described where somebody is acting reasonably but is still liable is a concept known as strict liability, and when there is strict liability, a defendant might be liable even when they are deemed not to have acted or failed to do something negligently. So your question is especially relevant for this example, as there actually is an established line of cases that say that owners of wild animals are strictly liable for any mischief caused by that animal, even when the owner took reasonable precautions to prevent that potential harm.

Warren Berg: 23:25

Well, very interesting. Now I've got another question for you both. In this example, you stated that the student's parents had all signed waiver forms before allowing their kids to go into the zoo. How might that complicate things really?

Cynthia Carels: 23:38

The short answer to your question is

Warren Berg: 23:40

let me guess.

Cynthia Carels: 23:42

Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those issues that can be quite complicated, but at its most basic level, a waiver of liability is an agreement not to sue someone for any civil wrongs that are specified in that waiver agreement. So these sorts of agreements are really common where people are taking part in high risk activities like zip lining, paintballing, you know, even ice skating to a certain degree and, believe it or not, in some circumstances a person might be subject to this sort of agreement without even realizing it. So for, like any skiers in the audience, if you take a close look at the fine print on your lift ticket the next time you hit the slopes, it will almost certainly limit the liability of the ski hill the moment that you start skiing. Now, fortunately for children, waivers are not technically enforceable against minors, so this means that parents actually can't sign away their child's right to sue for injuries that are caused by a third party's negligence, even if they wanted to.

Warren Berg: 24:40

So in this case, why do operators of risky activities still require the parents to sign these forms, even if they won't hold up in court?

Teddy Sanders: 24:48

Well, there are a few reasons for this, warren. First, the stern and complex language of these waivers is often enough to dissuade parents from exploring their legal options. In these unfortunate cases, well-meaning parents of injured and even severely injured children might think they are on the hook for medical costs and other costs associated with their child's care, when in reality those costs should be paid for by the operator or, in most cases, the operators insure. And second, these waivers of liability usually include statements known as parental indemnity clauses. What these do, at least in theory, is require parents to agree that, in the event their child is injured and sues the party protected by the waiver for damages, the parents must reimburse the party for any money they have to pay, and potentially reimburse them for legal expenses as well. Luckily, in Alberta, we have some statutory protections in place under the Minors' Property Act, which makes these indemnity agreements void when signed by a minor's representative.

Warren Berg: 25:45

So if a child is injured during an extracurricular activity after their parents have signed a waiver to allow them to participate, they should still be calling Weir Bowen LLP to find out if they have a claim. Is that correct?

Cynthia Carels: 25:57

Yeah, exactly, given the legislative protections that we have in place in Alberta. The main effect of these waivers and the parental indemnity clauses is often just scaring people away from calling a lawyer to talk about making a claim after their child gets injured. But these waivers often do not preclude us from bringing a successful claim and they certainly should not dissuade parents from seeking legal advice if they find themselves in such a situation.

Teddy Sanders: 26:24

And on the subject of the Minors Property Act, I think it's also important to mention another very important protection that this legislation provides to minors. According to this act, settlements of minors' claims aren't actually binding on them unless they are approved in accordance with the act. Without getting into too many details when it comes to children's legal rights when participating in extracurricular activities, parents should remember two things. First, if you sign a waiver permitting your child to participate in an activity and the child is later injured, it is likely that the waiver is not valid and should not preclude you from bringing a lawsuit on your child's behalf. And second, if an insurance adjuster pressures you into agreeing to an unfair settlement for your child's injuries, it is likely that that settlement won't prevent your child from suing in the future, unless that settlement has approved by a court in accordance with the Minors Property Act Bottom line when in doubt, talk to a lawyer.

Warren Berg: 27:16

Okay, this is all very good information to know. Let's go back to the previous zoo and school examples, and so far we've been talking about claims against schools or companies involved in extracurricular activities. But in reality, a school or company can't really be negligent, can it? I mean, at the end of the day, we're talking about people here doing or not doing stupid things that might come to harm somebody, not doing stupid things that might come to harm somebody. So why is it that you keep talking about suing the zoo or the school and not, for example, the specific teacher who planned the bubble activity?

Cynthia Carels: 27:49

Yeah, no, that's a great question to clarify and it gets to another important aspect of a personal injury lawsuit.

Cynthia Carels: 27:56

So, while we've mostly been talking about assessing the strengths of a claim and negligence using those principles of the standard of care and duty of care, causation and damages, there is another factor that plaintiffs have to consider and that is whether the defendants that you're actually suing can even pay if they are found to be liable.

Cynthia Carels: 28:15

And many individuals do not have the means to pay out the proceeds of a lawsuit, but their employers, who are almost always insured, can usually foot that bill, and in many cases, the court will impose liability on both the employee who did the stupid thing and the employer, and this is a concept known as vicarious liability. So, in other words, when someone does something stupid in the course and scope of their employment, so, in other words, when someone does something stupid in the course and scope of their employment, the courts can hold the employer to blame if someone gets hurt, and, in the end, what this means is that the employee themselves isn't typically going to be stuck personally paying out the claim or liquidating their life savings on legal fees defending a claim against them for making an honest mistake at work.

Cynthia Carels: 29:01

Like always, there are some exceptions to vicarious liability, but in many cases we can get recovery through the employer's insurer.

Warren Berg: 29:08

So what you're saying is that if somebody's child gets injured at school, they don't need to be worried about bankrupting their favorite teacher if they want to get fair compensation for the kid's injuries.

Teddy Sanders: 29:19

No, Warren, thankfully not.

Warren Berg: 29:21

Very good to know. Let's say, one of our listeners settled their child's claim a long time ago. Will it be too late to do anything about it now?

Teddy Sanders: 29:30

Well, that's another great question, and one that brings us to a topic which will come up in pretty much every personal injury lawsuit.

Teddy Sanders: 29:36

Limitation periods Ding ding In Alberta, there are two important deadlines, or limitations dates, which plaintiffs must consider before filing a lawsuit.

Teddy Sanders: 29:47

The first limitation date generally occurs two years after the date a person knew, or ought to have known, that they had a claim against the defendant.

Teddy Sanders: 29:56

To understand how this limitation period works, let's imagine that a person slips on a wet floor at a restaurant and breaks their ankle In that circumstance.

Teddy Sanders: 30:00

Let's imagine that a person slips on a wet floor at a restaurant and breaks their ankle. In that circumstance, it is clear that their limitation date would be two years after the date they slipped and fell, because the injury and its cause are obvious the moment it happens. So, in addition to the two-year limitation date, there is an additional 10-year, what's called an ultimate limitation date and, unlike the two-year deadline which begins when the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, that they had a claim against the defendant, the ultimate limitation date is fixed, always occurring 10 years after the date the potential claim arose. To understand how this limitation date works, let's imagine that the person who slips on the wet floor feels fine in the days and weeks, even years, after the fall. Unbeknownst to them, however, the fall caused irreversible damage to their spine which, 12 years after the fact, starts to manifest itself in severe arthritis. The 10-year limitation date makes it so that the individual cannot sue more than 10 years after the fact, even if they genuinely didn't know that they had a claim during that 10-year period.

Cynthia Carels: 31:04

Yeah, and as one final note, it's important to remember that the rules around limitation periods can vary across provinces and territories, and so, for this reason, if you're thinking about suing, it's really important to talk to a lawyer to understand what limitation dates apply in your specific jurisdiction and when those dates are likely to occur given the specifics of your situation. There's also some other specific pieces of legislation that can make certain limitation and notice periods even shorter, such as addressing rules and liability against municipal governments. So, honestly, it is really important not to wait to talk to a lawyer about what rules might apply to your specific situation and, of course, as we always mention on Ask the Lawyer, the information that we're giving on this show is just that it's general information For actual legal advice relating to a specific claim. It's very important for listeners to know they need to speak directly with a lawyer, who can review all of the relevant facts and records regarding your situation.

Warren Berg: 32:02

Okay. So I have to ask is it ever possible to get out of a limitation period?

Cynthia Carels: 32:07

So unfortunately, the Limitations Act is quite rigid and while lawyers can make arguments about when that two-year limitation date should occur, based on when the plaintiff truly discovered that they had a claim against the defendant, that 10-year limitation period is pretty immovable. But of course there always are some important exceptions within the Limitations Act, and one of those really applies to our topic today involving minors. So, for example, under the Act, the limitation period for a claim by a minor or a child does not start until they turn 18. So that means in most cases a minor actually has until their 20th birthday to file a statement of claim at the courthouse. And this means that if someone settled their childhood personal injury claim years ago but that settlement was not actually formally approved by the court and the child had not turned 20 yet, there still might be time to file a claim for damages or reopen a bad settlement deal.

Warren Berg: 33:03

Great to know.

Teddy Sanders: 33:04

And before moving on, I just want to echo something Cynthia mentioned earlier and remind our listeners that the information we're sharing today is just general information. It may not apply to your particular case. For that reason, nothing you hear today should be taken as legal advice. If anyone is looking for actual legal advice about their situation or has questions about anything we talk about here on Ask the Lawyer, we recommend that you contact us to discuss the circumstances of your particular case before jumping to any conclusions about your potential legal rights and your potential claims.

Warren Berg: 33:33

And we've always talked about complications and exceptions that come up on the show yeah. And that's a good reminder, teddy, and it might be a good time as well to remind our listeners how they can get in touch with you.

Teddy Sanders: 33:42

Of course, the easiest way to contact us would be through our website, that's at wearebowencom, spelled W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-Ncom. Alternatively, you can call our main line at 780-424-2030, and our reception staff can put you in touch with one of our lawyers for a consultation.

Warren Berg: 34:02

This is Ask the Lawyer on Winspeaker Radio, cfwe and CJWE. I'm your host, warren Berg, and joining us today, lawyer Cynthia Carrolls and articling student Teddy Sanders of Weir Bowen LLP in Edmonton. Today we're discussing legal issues that might relate to injuries at school and during extracurricular activities. And before moving on to our next topic today you've talked a lot about claims where someone failed to act reasonably and injuries happened, but I'm curious about any other situations or ways that a school can be liable for injuries that happen on their watch.

Cynthia Carels: 34:35

So this is really going to get at the cause behind a civil action, and you know, as we talked about earlier, tort law focuses on wrongs that are committed by one person towards another that cause that other person harm, and one cause of action under this umbrella of tort law we've been talking about today is an action in negligence. So similar to negligence, though there is another cause of action called a breach of a fiduciary duty, and this is a special kind of duty that is imposed on individuals in positions of trust, requiring them to act in the best interest of those who are subject to their care or authority, and we're going to call those individuals beneficiaries. So you can think of a fiduciary duty as sort of a supercharged duty of care that's going to require the fiduciary to prioritize the beneficiary's interests, sometimes even over their own.

Teddy Sanders: 35:27

And in school settings. Teachers and other school staff are generally considered to owe a fiduciary duty to students in their care. The scope of this duty grows depending on the vulnerability of the students under the teacher's care. For example, fiduciary duties placed on teachers are especially high when they are caring for very young or high needs children, or when they have children under their care for significant periods of time, such as in a residential setting.

Warren Berg: 35:52

Now, most of our discussion today is focused on situations where somebody essentially makes a mistake, not necessarily a mistake that might be justified or excusable, but still a mistake. But what about situations where someone does something wrong on purpose? Does that make a difference?

Teddy Sanders: 36:08

That's a very good question, warren and it relates to our next topic of discussion, which is unfortunately quite a sensitive one, as we are going to talk about claims involving intentional acts of abuse, including sexual abuse, in institutional settings.

Warren Berg: 36:22

Okay, and we flagged this issue earlier, and this discussion might not be appropriate for listeners of all ages.

Cynthia Carels: 36:28

Yeah, and it also might be highly triggering to some of our listeners today. So I'm just going to encourage people you know take special care for yourself and those within earshot of the radio before we go any further.

Warren Berg: 36:39

So with that said, Teddy, you had mentioned this topic in the context of institutional settings. What do you mean by that?

Teddy Sanders: 36:48

Well, an institutional setting can mean a lot of things. These settings can include schools, daycares, religious organizations, youth and recreational organizations, health care facilities, military academies, organized sports and even correctional facilities like prisons and jails. In many cases, these settings have people who are in a position of trust and authority, who care for individuals who rely on that trust.

Cynthia Carels: 37:12

And pretty much everything we've discussed today applies to these institutions rely on that trust, and pretty much everything we've discussed today applies to these institutions. So just as a school can be held liable for injuries caused by their negligence or the negligence of their employees, so too can any of these other types of institutions.

Warren Berg: 37:26

But what about? Let's say we're talking about something beyond negligence, like a deliberate or wrongful act that somebody might commit that causes harm to someone in the care of these institutions?

Cynthia Carels: 37:37

So what you're talking about is what we call an intentional tort or a wrongdoing. Just, you know a little bit of FYI nerdy interest here. The word tort itself comes from the Latin term torque or to twist, and interestingly, that word tort and the word torture come from that same Latin root word. But, as I was saying, tort law essentially covers those wrongful acts or omissions committed by one person that harms another, and there are a variety of types of torts, and in many cases that you know, the torts are committed unintentionally and we call that negligence. However, there are these other torts that are known as intentional, and so we'll use the example of the tort of battery.

Cynthia Carels: 38:22

That refers to harmful or offensive physical contact against a victim that is applied without their consent and, unlike the negligence test on a clear factual record, it is usually pretty easy to determine whether or not the elements of the tort of battery are actually met. You know where a negligence analysis is often going to turn on. You know the reasonable test. The test for battery is a lot simpler. The court's just going to ask was there physical contact? If the answer is yes, then the next question is whether or not there was actually consent.

Teddy Sanders: 38:55

But unfortunately there remain a number of barriers for sexual battery claimants, which do not necessarily arrive in negligence cases. For example, issues relating to consent can be very blurry and it can also be very difficult to prove that the defendant's employer should also be held vicariously liable for the defendant's unlawful behavior.

Warren Berg: 39:14

You mentioned earlier that employers can be held vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees. Is that not the case for sexual battery?

Teddy Sanders: 39:22

Not always, Warren. Vicarious liability only applies to actions or omissions committed in the course and scope of someone's employment. Unfortunately, the definition of in the course of one's employment can be pretty murky. For example, while the court has found that a security guard who sets a building he is watching on fire is not acting in the course of his employment, the court has also found that a residential care worker who sexually assaults a child under his care was acting in the course of his employment. The trouble with sexual battery cases is that it can be very difficult to say that sexual assault could ever even remotely be related to the proper discharge of one's duty. That being said, it is also unfathomable that an employer who creates and fosters a risky situation in which an individual is vulnerable to a sexual assault should get away scot-free.

Cynthia Carels: 40:14

So this is why the court has provided several additional factors that are built into the analysis of vicarious liability. For instance, now courts will consider whether the employer somehow created or contributed to creating a situation that allowed that abuse to happen or basically made it more likely to happen. In some fashion, and, unfortunately, especially in institutional settings, these situations can involve particularly vulnerable people Children, people with disabilities. The elderly are often targets as well, and the degree of vulnerability or degree of power that the abuser was afforded over potential victims and how easily that power could be wrongfully exercised also now factor into that analysis.

Warren Berg: 41:01

So it seems like establishing vicarious liability is crucial for many plaintiffs to get compensated for sexual abuse in institutional settings. Are there any downsides to it?

Teddy Sanders: 41:12

Well, warren, at the end of the day, the court must come to a decision that is fair and just for everyone involved, while also considering the ripple effects.

Teddy Sanders: 41:21

So one of the ripple effects can be the insurability of certain kinds of employers. The easier it is to find an employer vicariously liable, the higher their insurance premiums will be. Higher insurance premiums are detrimental to these organizations and in many cases the cost is passed along to consumers, which generally makes accessing these organizations less affordable. So, from that standpoint, judges must be careful how far they allow the doctrine of vicarious liability to grow, or else it could have significant negative effects on the community at large. That being said, considering the immensely harmful psychological effects of sexual abuse, especially for youth, it makes sense for courts to lean more in favor of expanding vicarious liability to those plaintiffs. So those plaintiffs, rather, can get their compensation that they ultimately need and deserve. And, furthermore, by holding employers vicariously liable, courts incentivize institutional defendants to implement better protocols to ensure that their employees don't engage in such horrible behavior. In my judgment, that's reason enough to broaden, and not retract, the ambit of vicarious liability.

Warren Berg: 42:27

And when we're talking about claims relating to sexual abuse, I have to think these are already very difficult claims for a lot of victims to consider bringing forward before even having to worry about whether or not they can collect any money.

Teddy Sanders: 42:40

when it's all said and done, that's certainly true, and this is obviously a tough subject. No one should ever have to experience sexual abuse in any setting. Unfortunately, there are terrible people out there who do terrible things, and the reality is that these things often do happen in institutional settings, involving particularly vulnerable people. There are a number of reasons why institutional sexual abuse claims can be difficult to prove, you know. First, defendants in these cases may be respected members of the community or part of established institutions which many community members interact with on a regular basis. We are talking about spiritual leaders, teachers, coaches, physicians, people who are looked up to for guidance and support. When individuals are at their most vulnerable. For victims it can be an uphill battle to show that an individual with so much respect could have done something so horrible. This brings me to the second reason why these claims are so difficult to prove.

Teddy Sanders: 43:37

In many cases, the plaintiff will have difficulty marshalling enough evidence to prove a wrongful act was actually committed. In personal injury lawsuits, victims bear the burden of proof and have to convince the court. There are better than even odds that the defendant committed the wrongful act that they're being accused of. Since most sexual assaults occur behind closed doors, it can be very difficult for victims to prove they are abused. In such cases, it can be very helpful if victims can establish a pattern of wrongful behavior on the part of the defendant, including showing that there were multiple allegations of abuse.

Teddy Sanders: 44:11

And finally, the third reason why institutional sexual abuse claims can be challenging to prove is that there is often a wide disparity between the resources available to the institutional defendant and the victim who is claiming that they were harmed. This power imbalance is even more glaring for plaintiffs who live in areas with lower access to justice, such as in rural areas and across the territories where there is a large deficit in legal services. To counteract this disparity, victims are well advised to seek lawyers with a lot of experience in sexual battery and abuse claims to level the playing field with these institutional defendants. Despite these challenges, sexual abuse litigants from a variety of institutional backgrounds have been able to achieve compensation. For instance, at we Are Bowen, we're contacted by victims of Canada's residential school system, even to this day.

Warren Berg: 44:57

Yeah, this is a very tough subject indeed. Now you mentioned residential schools, but the last of those closed decades ago. Do victims of the residential school system or any sexual abuse that happened years ago still have any legal recourse, given those pesky limitation periods we talked about earlier?

Cynthia Carels: 45:16

They actually do.

Cynthia Carels: 45:18

So this is some good news.

Cynthia Carels: 45:19

Back in 2014, alberta's Limitations Act was actually amended to remove the limitation period for claims of sexual assault and sexual battery, and this change is actually in step with the courts generally having an awareness about the harmful and immensely complex psychological effects of sexual abuse.

Cynthia Carels: 45:39

And now more than ever, there is a broad acceptance that trauma associated with sexual violence can manifest differently depending on the context of the abuse and the person who was abused.

Cynthia Carels: 45:49

So, for instance, a child might suffer sexual abuse at a very young age and live a relatively normal life for years or even decades following the abuse before they begin to suffer or really appreciate, you know, the debilitating psychological effects that they're experiencing and making that link back to the sexual abuse. And furthermore, given the stigma attached to sexual violence, many litigants don't feel comfortable coming forward with their claims until well past that initial assault. And in addition to eliminating the limitation period for claims relating to sexual assault or battery, that amendment in 2014 also removed limitation periods for claims relating to any other misconduct of a sexual nature if, at the time of the misconduct, the person with the claim was a minor. If they were in an intimate relationship with the person who committed the misconduct, if they were dependent on that person, whether financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise, or if they were a person under a disability. So limitation periods for claims relating to an assault or battery, even the ones that are not of a sexual nature, were also removed in those same four circumstances.

Teddy Sanders: 47:00

And another incredibly important point is that this change was made retroactive. This means that it opened the door for victims of sexual abuse that happened before the amendment to bring civil claims that previously were already limitation barred. This allows many individuals who suffered historical sexual abuses, such as victims of Canada's residential school system, to seek compensation.

Warren Berg: 47:22

Thankfully, it seems that views and attitudes on sexual abuse in our society they've evolved a lot over the past few years. And is this now reflected in the board? Sexual abuse claimants are receiving?

Cynthia Carels: 47:34

Well, it is moving in that direction. So historically, damages in claims relating to sexual abuse or assault were relatively low compared to other types of personal injury cases, but more recently, our courts have begun to recognize the substantial impact that sexual abuse has on victims, both in their general quality of life and in their ability to work or find gainful employment, and in their ability to form adult interdependent relationships. So, in the end, what this all means is that damage awards in these cases are now more attuned not only to the pain, suffering and trauma that victims experience, but also to the more indirect losses and lingering damages that sexual abuse survivors experience.

Warren Berg: 48:15

Now, when you say indirect losses and damages, what does that mean?

Cynthia Carels: 48:19

So in the past, courts were fairly reluctant to award compensation for things like loss of income or earning capacity, for injuries that were primarily psychological, and I think that this archaic thinking persists to a certain degree even to this day. You know, it's a lot easier to visualize the daily struggles of, you know, let's say, a paraplegic after a car accident, whereas psychological injuries are often hidden, they're more difficult to spot, to articulate and, you know, even for the victims themselves to understand and even for the victims themselves to understand. But now more than ever, courts are beginning to recognize the profound disadvantages that these victims have and they are starting to make more appropriate awards as a result. And other types of damages have increased as well. So, for instance, those general damages that are intended to compensate someone for their pain and suffering, as opposed to those financial losses or monetary losses we're seeing that those are being awarded in much higher amounts in sexual abuse cases than they were previously as well.

Teddy Sanders: 49:23

And it's also become more common for courts to award punitive damages in these cases as well.

Warren Berg: 49:28

So let's explain what are punitive damages.

Teddy Sanders: 49:31

So punitive damages are somewhat unique. While most damages are meant to compensate or put a victim back to the place they would have been, had the wrong never happened, the purpose of punitive damages is actually to punish the defendant and to deter similar blameworthy conduct in the future. While most judges are hesitant to award these damages, there are some circumstances in which they are routinely awarded or, at the very least, considered. For instance, there is a line of Canadian case law which suggests that nearly every claim for sexual abuse should warrant some amount of punitive damages. From a conceptual standpoint, you know this makes sense. After all, it is difficult to imagine many actions more blameworthy than sexually abusing another person, and in the context of institutional sexual assaults, punitive damages can help encourage institutional defendants to clean up their act and put procedures and controls in place to prevent future abuses.

Warren Berg: 50:23

So, in the big picture, what do all of these changes mean for victims?

Cynthia Carels: 50:27

Well, many victims have been dissuaded in the past from pursuing civil claims or they have been unable to find a lawyer to represent them because it was simply not worthwhile to bring those claims. And, to be clear, there are still lots and lots of challenges. But now the potential upside is there for more victims in more situations to justify that risk and discomfort that comes with this type of claim.

Warren Berg: 50:52

Now I want to switch gears a little bit here. It's my understanding that many perpetrators of sexual assault are also subject to criminal proceedings. What role do criminal matters play in these civil cases?

Teddy Sanders: 51:06

Well, I think it is important to understand that criminal matters are separate and distinct from civil proceedings. This being said, the outcome of a criminal case may be quite influential on a civil case. The reason for this is that to convict someone in a criminal court, or in a criminal offense, rather, the court needs to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed all of the elements of the offense. This is a very high burden something in the range of 95 to 99 percent certainty before someone is convicted. The reason for this is that the consequences of conviction, like losing your freedom, are so serious. As a result, if someone is convicted for a criminal offense and is later sued civilly for the same conduct, that conviction is generally considered prima facie proof that the wrongdoing occurred. Prima facie is another Latin phrase, which basically means a conviction proves on its face that the offense was committed.

Warren Berg: 52:03

Lawyers do love your Latin phrases. Yeah, we do.

Cynthia Carels: 52:06

Makes us sound like wizards. But as Teddy alluded to, the burden of proof in civil cases is actually much lower than it is in those criminal cases. So in civil cases the standard of proof is actually on what we call a balance of probabilities. That essentially means that a judge only needs to be 51 sure that the facts are required to prove that plaintiff's claim. So essentially the test for finding in civil liability is it's more likely than not that this happened. So if a judge determines beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a criminal act, it would seem quite silly on its face you know, to use that Latin term, the prima facie to run a full civil trial on the same conduct where that burden of proof is now only 51%.

Warren Berg: 52:53

That makes perfect sense. What if it's the other way around? What if somebody is found not guilty in criminal proceedings? Will that impact a civil proceeding?

Teddy Sanders: 53:03

Well, for the same reason, this works only one way. If someone commits a sexual assault and they are later acquitted, or the charges are withdrawn, or even if there are never any criminal charges at all, that is not necessarily proof that they did not commit the assault. As I'm sure many people are aware, sexual assault convictions in criminal courts are still relatively rare, and our system is essentially designed to avoid wrongful convictions, even if that means erring on the side of letting many more guilty people go free.

Cynthia Carels: 53:34

So the takeaway here is just because someone hasn't been criminally convicted, that does not mean that a civil case is necessarily hopeless.

Cynthia Carels: 53:44

In fact, a lot of civil cases are settled out of court without ever going to trial or even having a judge weigh in on whether or not that assault even happened. The lower threshold that we have for a burden of proof in a civil case can actually incentivize wrongdoers to be more cautious about running a sexual abuse claim to trial. And I also wanted to just circle back to the context of allegations of institutional sexual abuse, because it's important to note that a criminal conviction against an abuser does not automatically mean that the institution itself is also presumed liable in a civil claim. We're still going to need to prove those elements of vicarious liability, and that often requires a lot of evidence about the broader circumstances around the time of the assault. And of course, you know, with the passage of time memories fade and evidence disappears. So finding concrete evidence of key facts in the case can start to become a real challenge the further away we get from it. And of course, sadly, documents can get lost, destroyed or, you know, quote-unquote accidentally shredded.

Warren Berg: 54:51

On that note, do you find that civil cases involving sexual abuse are difficult to prove due to a lack of evidence?

Cynthia Carels: 54:57

Unfortunately, that is a barrier that many victims face in these cases. You know, as we mentioned earlier, many instances of sexual abuse are going to be occurring behind closed doors and many victims of that abuse are simply not able to report or document their experiences. And unfortunately, the more time that goes by, the greater those evidentiary issues become and, at the end of the day, as civil lawyers, we can only work with the evidence that we have. We're going to cast a wide net, you know. We'll get a bit creative and see what we can come up with and in many ways lawyers are kind of like detectives. We're going to have to sit and think on things and every once in a while, some days, a crucial piece of evidence will reveal itself, even if in reality it's been sitting right in front of our faces all the way along.

Warren Berg: 55:42

Cynthia, by the sounds of it, you and Teddy are up for the task. Before we end our show today, is there anything else that maybe we should say to our listeners who might be victims of sexual abuse or know of somebody who is a victim of sexual abuse?

Teddy Sanders: 55:56

Well, all I can say is that my heart goes out to anyone who is a survivor of sexual abuse, no matter what your story is, when the abuse happened or where you are from. Please know that there are people out there who are willing to listen, and if we can find a pathway to holding someone legally accountable, we'll do what we can to help you seek justice.

Warren Berg: 56:15

And the final word to you, Cynthia.

Cynthia Carels: 56:16

Yeah thanks. So to anyone out there who's been through the trauma of sexual abuse, know that you are not alone and your voice really does matter. And I know the idea of going through the legal process, especially if you've already gone through a criminal investigation or even a trial and digging up painful memories. All of that can be really overwhelming. But when and if you're ever ready, our team at we're Bowen is prepared to hear your story. In fact, now that more and more survivors are coming forward, we're Bowen is actually proud to be a founding member of a national coalition of trusted law firms that are committed to raising the bar in this area of practice. The Sexual Abuse Lawyers Alliance is a network of leading civil litigation lawyers dedicated to supporting survivors across Canada with resources, advocacy and education, and everyone in the Sexual Abuse Litigation Association is committed to trauma-informed practices, to creating safe spaces for survivors and appropriately honoring the deeply personal experiences that our clients trust us with every day.

Warren Berg: 57:25

So if anybody out there is wondering if they might have a case or they want some advice about this sort of situation, what should they do?

Cynthia Carels: 57:32

So they should definitely start by checking out our website at we'rebowencom that's W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-Ncom, or give us a call. The direct line to our main reception desk is 780-424-2030. And if you didn't have a pen handy, you have one now I'll say it again it's 780-424-2030.

Warren Berg: 57:56

Now, if you joined us late, we had lawyer Cynthia Carrolls and articling student Teddy Sanders from we're Bowen LLP joining us today and, with the start of school right around the corner, we started our show today talking about injuries at school and during extracurricular activities. Any big takeaways you want to remind our listeners of today?

Teddy Sanders: 58:14

Well, for one, warren asks phenomenal questions. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much, Warren. And number two I would say to any parents listening in the unfortunate event your child gets accidentally hurt on a field trip or suffers some form of intentional harm, don't blame yourself for signing a waiver form. Just because you signed a waiver does not mean your kid has no legal rights anymore. Call us and we'll be happy to talk about why.

Warren Berg: 58:39

This is very important information for our listeners to know. As always, we've covered a lot of ground today in the August edition of Ask the Lawyer with Cynthia Carrolls and articling student Teddy Sanders of Weir Bowen LLP in Edmonton. Once again, for more information, go to weirbowencom W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N phone number 780-424-2030. Or you can find a link to Ask the Lawyer on the radio station homepages, where these shows will be available to stream on demand.

Cynthia Carels: 59:06

Yeah, thanks, warren, and next month I'm going to have my colleague, christina Thiessen back here with me. We're going to be discussing a whole bunch of issues relating to personal injury claims during Halloween spooky season.

Warren Berg: 59:17

And we're looking forward to learning much more about that and others through this series, which you can hear right here on the last Saturday of every month on Wind Speaker Radio, CFWE and CJ.