Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Legislation — Interpretation — Torts — Motor Vehicles — Negligence — Meaning of “owner” — Vicarious liability — Whether finance companies should be subject to vicarious liability for motor vehicle accidents when they finance a consumer’s acquisition of a motor vehicle through a “lease with an option to purchase” instead of a “contract of conditional sale”? — Section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318.

The respondent, Ms. Yeung was a passenger in a car driven in British Columbia by the respondent, Henry Ming Hang Au (“Au Jr.”), then 18 years of age. He was driving at excessive speed, lost control of the vehicle, crossed the centre line and was struck on the passenger side by a vehicle driven by Katherine Yen. Ms. Yeung suffered a brain injury that has severely affected almost every aspect of her life. Her litigation guardian claimed substantial damages from the drivers of both cars. Eventually the claim against Ms. Yen was dismissed, leaving as defendants Au Jr., his father the respondent Anthony Tak Kai Au (“Au Sr.”), and the applicant, Transportaction Lease Systems Inc., (“TA”) Au Sr. had leased the car from TA in order to make it available to Au Jr. Liability attached to the father as an “owner” (as defined by s. 1 of the Act), a conclusion that was not challenged by any of the parties appearing. The question for the courts below, was whether TA is also vicariously liable as an “owner” pursuant to s. 86(1) of the Act, or whether it falls within the exception created by s. 86(3). The Supreme Court of B.C. dismissed Ms. Yeung, by her Litigation Guardian Heidi Yeung’s action against TA but granted judgment in favour of Ms. Yeung in the amount of $5,800,000 plus other fees and charges, against both Au Jr. and Au Sr. The Court of Appeal found that TA was vicariously liable for Ms. Yeung’s damages and judgment was entered against TA, as well as against Au Sr. and Au Jr.