Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central dispute concerns allegations of assault and battery arising from an altercation outside a Moncton bar, with the plaintiff claiming intentional torts and seeking various damages.

• Defendants raised affirmative defences including consent, self-defence, and defence of a third party, contesting both liability and the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages.

• The admissibility and interpretation of video surveillance footage played a pivotal role in assessing the conduct and credibility of all parties.

• Joint tortfeasor liability was examined, particularly whether two defendants acted together in a common design to commit the alleged torts.

• The appropriateness of granting summary judgment, especially partial summary judgment for one defendant while claims against others proceed, was a significant procedural issue.

• Costs were awarded to the plaintiff against two defendants, while the third defendant successfully obtained dismissal without an award of costs due to procedural irregularities.

Facts of the case

Daniel Sullivan initiated legal proceedings against Cedric Gould, Colin Mitch Cormier, and Carlie Cormier, alleging that they committed the intentional torts of assault and battery during an altercation outside a bar in downtown Moncton in the early hours of April 3, 2022. Sullivan claimed that the altercation resulted in injuries, including a fractured left ankle, and sought special, general, aggravated, and punitive damages. The defendants each denied liability and advanced various defences, including consent, self-defence, and defence of a third party. The incident was captured on video surveillance, which became a central piece of evidence in the proceedings.

Procedural background and motions

Each defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the action against them lacked merit and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial. The parties agreed to proceed on the basis of affidavit evidence and the surveillance video, without cross-examination. The plaintiff did not bring a cross-motion for summary judgment, so the court was limited to deciding the defendants’ motions.

Legal issues and defences

The court reviewed the legal framework for summary judgment under Rule 22, referencing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin and subsequent appellate guidance. The intentional torts of assault and battery were analyzed, with the court emphasizing that injury is not a necessary element for these torts—non-consensual, offensive contact suffices. The court also addressed the defences of consent, self-defence, and defence of a third party, clarifying that provocation is not a complete defence but may be relevant to damages.

Assessment of evidence

The surveillance video showed the sequence of events leading up to and during the altercation. The court found that the plaintiff was initially passive and that Gould and Mitch Cormier appeared to be the aggressors, pushing and poking Sullivan before any physical response from him. The evidence did not support the defendants’ claims that the plaintiff consented to the fight or that they acted in self-defence or in defence of each other. However, Carlie Cormier’s involvement was distinct; she intervened only after the plaintiff and her brother were already on the ground, and she struck the plaintiff to free her brother from what she believed to be a dangerous headlock.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions of Cedric Gould and Colin Mitch Cormier, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their liability. Each was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiff. In contrast, the court granted Carlie Cormier’s motion for summary judgment, holding that her actions were reasonable and justified as defence of a third party. The action against her was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to her due to procedural issues with her pleadings. The case will proceed to trial against the remaining two defendants, with damages yet to be determined. The only monetary amounts specified at this stage are the costs awarded to the plaintiff from Gould and Cormier, totaling $3,000. No damages have been awarded as the substantive claims remain to be tried.