Three intoxicated high school classmates pushed, punched, kicked fellow bus passenger
In an appeal arising from the injuries of a man assaulted by a then-minor defendant and two others, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed that the parents were not liable on behalf of their son, who was then 17 years old.
On June 17, 2002, three intoxicated young men followed the plaintiff in Barnard c. Zilic, 2026 QCCA 1006, when he exited a municipal bus that they had all boarded.
In an attack described by the appeal court as gratuitous and unprovoked, the three assailants pushed, punched, and kicked the plaintiff until other bus passengers intervened.
Mr. G. Berry was apprehended at the scene, but the two other attackers fled.
Injuries
Following the assault, the plaintiff received diagnoses for post-concussion syndrome, chronic persistent pain syndrome, a cognitive deficit, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The plaintiff also experienced chronic tension headaches, persistent neck pain, and episodic thoracic and lumbar spinal pain.
Quebec courts’ prior decisions
The Court of Quebec’s Youth Division convicted Mr. Berry, who was 17 years old during the incident. Though he initially refused to reveal his accomplices’ identities, he eventually implicated two of his high school classmates, who turned out to be Mr. W. Norris and Mr. I. Zilic.
On Apr. 4, 2024, Justice Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court of Quebec found Mr. I. Zilic liable for the plaintiff’s injuries as one of the three assailants. The trial judge did not consider the claim against him prescribed during the November 2011 service upon him.
The judge acknowledged that Mr. I. Zilic was also 17 years old and a minor during the attack. However, the judge did not consider his parents – the defendants Mr. B. Zilic and Ms. Z. Zilic – liable for their son’s fault.
Though declining to impose pecuniary damages, the judge awarded the plaintiff moral damages of $80,000 and punitive damages of $10,000.
The plaintiff appealed, while the defendant Mr. I. Zilic filed an incidental appeal.
Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling
The Court of Appeal of Quebec partly allowed the plaintiff’s appeal to award him $132,750 in pecuniary damages. The appeal court found a legal error in the trial judge’s failure to award any pecuniary damages despite finding an economic loss on the plaintiff’s part.
Thus, the appeal court held Mr. I. Zilic and two other defendants – not including Mr. I. Zilic’s parents – solidarily liable for $212,750 in damages, plus interest, legal costs and additional legal indemnity on:
- $159,650 as of Nov. 15, 2011
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2012
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2013
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2014
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2015
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2016
- $8,850 as of Dec. 31, 2017
Appeal partly denied, incidental appeal rejected
Otherwise, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. The appeal court also denied Mr. I. Zilic’s incidental appeal with legal costs.
The appeal court ruled that the main and incidental appeals mostly asked it to revisit factual findings, reweigh evidence, or otherwise interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of her discretion.
The appeal court held that the parties failed to discharge their burdens of establishing a palpable and overriding error to interfere with the factual findings or a reviewable error to impugn the discretionary decision.
First, in connection with Mr. I. Zilic’s liability, the appeal court saw no basis for appellate intervention. To determine that Mr. I. Zilic had participated in the assault, the appeal court noted that the judge relied on:
- the out-of-court examination of a fellow assailant
- the plaintiff’s credible testimony identifying Mr. I. Zilic
- Mr. I. Zilic’s admission that his physical appearance had changed little since 2002
- Mr. I. Zilic’s evasive testimony in some respects
Second, regarding parental liability, the appeal court refused to reweigh the trial evidence on sufficient parental custody, supervision, and education.
The appeal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding a prior incident in which Mr. I. Zilic’s parents had to pick him up from a police station after he became heavily intoxicated during a party when he was 14 years old. The plaintiff alleged that the parents inadequately reacted to this incident, which involved alcohol, just like the June 2002 assault.
The appeal court noted that the judge weighed not only the previous incident of intoxication, but also several other factors to conclude that the parents had exercised adequate care and supervision.
Third, the appeal court saw no reviewable error in the judge’s prescription finding.
Previous personal injury cases
Here are some other injury-related decisions from Canada’s appellate courts.
In proceedings arising from a collision that took three lives, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal issued a July 22 decision affirming a judge’s stay of duplicative fatal injury actions based on his interpretation of the province’s Fatal Injuries Act, 1989, which allowed only a single action per fatality.
In a case involving a slip-and-fall incident in a rented house, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal made a June 30 decision upholding that a landlord was an occupier who should exercise reasonable care to protect against harm caused by an unusual danger arising from the steps’ lack of a handrail and absence of a non-slip surface.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
