Former friends try to sue each other after alcohol-fuelled fight involving 'use of a cleaver,' small log

(Shutterstock)

Two former friends got in an alcohol-fuelled fight, seriously injured each other, then tried to sue each other in separate proceedings, British Columbia Supreme Court documents show.

What happened, based to a recent ruling on the civil cases and a sentencing decision from an associated criminal case, started as a fight at a house party in 2018.

One friend invited the other to attend and the pair drank beer and whisky. Then, after everyone left, they got in an argument that turned physical, according to an agreed statement of facts.

It's unclear who started the argument, or what they were fighting about. A judge said that "both their recollections have been impaired by the consumption of alcohol and the injuries they have sustained."

One used a "cleaver," and the other used a "blunt object believed to be a small wooden log," the court heard during the criminal trial of one of the men.

Both were seriously hurt, but only one man was criminally charged at the time.

The one holding the cleaver pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, and was given a six-month conditional sentence order to be followed by probation.

Following the plea, the party host tried to sue the guest, who'd admitted in court that the level of force he used was greater than could be justified as self-defence.

The guest said that his guilty plea didn't mean he was liable for civil assault and damages for the host's injuries.

Then the guest filed his own lawsuit, claiming he was overserved by the defendant named in his suit, and that the host assaulted him, "resulting in personal injuries, loss, and damage to him."

And so the case came before a judge in Vancouver earlier this month, who was asked to decide not on who is or isn't liable, but whether the matter was worth three trials – two civil, following the criminal trial.

In a decision made June 3 and published online Friday, Justice Jasmin Ahmad decided two would be enough.

"Having both actions heard together will result in a reduction of combined trial days as the Court will not have to hear duplicate and overlapping witness testimony and argument with respect to liability. Witnesses fees will also be reduced," she said in part.

"Use of the pre-trial fact-finding at trial will allow for efficiencies in time and expense in proving the facts that will be required at both trials."

She dismissed an application for a summary judgment, and decided there will be one trial, and that the man who was criminally convicted will have costs on both applications.