Law360 Canada ( July 26, 2021, 9:23 AM EDT) -- Action by Ivanovic for damages for breach of statutory, contractual, fiduciary and other duties owed to him. Ivanovic suffered serious injuries when he was assaulted during his part-time employment delivering pizza on September 4, 2005. He was delivering a pizza to a residence in an area known as Black Bear Crossing. That area housed a collection of former Army Barrick residences which now formed part of the Tsuu T'ina Nation Reserve. Ivanovic’s “accident” was reported to the Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board) by his employer, and Ivanovic received workers’ compensation benefits totalling $16,898. The Board subsequently opted to bring an action in Ivanovic’s name against the persons liable for his losses. The Board sought to recover the cost of the compensation it had paid. The Board represented to Ivanovic that the action would be conducted by its in-house lawyers in the mutual interest of the Board and Ivanovic. The defendant Howell was a senior lawyer employed by the Board. The defendant Kay was an articling student. They were responsible for the action and for drafting the statement of claim (the original action). Howell and Kay decided to name three individuals involved in the incident as defendants. They refused Ivanovic’s request to include the Tsuu T'ina Nation (the Nation) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, whom Ivanovic believed might bear liability for his injuries and damages suffered under the Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA). Howell and Kay did not consider or offer Ivanovic the option to pursue the original action at his own risk and expense. Judgment for compensatory damages of $898,465 was ultimately obtained against two of the individual defendants named in the original action. They had been noted in default and were impecunious. As a result, no money had been recovered. Ivanovic claimed that but for the alleged breaches of duty, he would have pursued claims against, and recovered compensation from, the Nation or Canada. He therefore asked that the defendants in this action be held liable for his losses. The defendants denied that they owed duties to Ivanovic as he alleged. They also submitted that even if a breach of duty was established, Ivanovic had not proved that he suffered any loss....