Court revisits damages issue following woman’s injury

A love affair gone awry, and then to court, will cost a bit less for a Teslin businessman after an appeal court judge reviewed the case.

A love affair gone awry, and then to court, will cost a bit less for a Teslin businessman after an appeal court judge reviewed the case.

Justice Ron Veale of the Yukon Supreme Court decided Thursday that Lenora Minet bears some responsibility for a fight she had with her then-lover, Norbert Kossler, which ended when Kossler punched Minet in the face.

His decision means that Kossler will have to pay 80 per cent of the damages originally awarded to Minet and Alberta Health.

Minet, Veale decided, should pay the remaining 20 per cent because she essentially started the fight by “trespassing and engaging in assaultive behaviour.”

The two will split the bill from Minet’s lawyer the same way.

The fight in question occurred on June 19, 2003, when Minet went to the Kosslers’ house and demanded Kossler speak to her.

Up until then, the two had been having an affair for some time and had an agreement that Minet would never visit or call Kossler at home.

The conversation quickly deteriorated into a wrestling match, with Minet hitting and screaming at Kossler while he tried to restrain her.

He repeatedly asked her to leave, but she persisted. In a final act, Kossler punched Minet in the face, fracturing her cheekbone. Minet was flown to Edmonton for surgery 10 days later. 

Minet sued Kossler.

In June 2007,Veale found that Kossler had acted with unnecessary violence and ordered him to pay his former employee and girlfriend $61,500 in damages, and almost $41,000 to Alberta Health for the cost of Minet’s treatment and surgery after the fight.

Thursday’s decision was the result of an appeal of that decision. In the appeal, Kossler’s lawyer, André Roothman of Whitehorse, used the Contributory Negligence Act to argue that Minet’s antagonistic role in the whole affair should be reflected in the awarding of damages.

The act is traditionally used in motor vehicles cases, but has twice been used successfully in B.C. courts. Veale referenced both those cases in his decision.

“Western Canada, especially B.C., is taking the lead in using the act on these kinds of cases,” Roothman said, adding that it allows a fairer distribution of responsibility and monetary damages. 

“My very rough estimate is that this will save my client at least $30,000,” he said.