Court File No.

KAM-S-S-58861
09-Apr-20 No.
Kamloops Registry
Kamloops
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Between

AMARYN SUGE SINGH MAHAL, an infant by his Litigation Guardian,

SUKJIT MAHAL, and the said SUKJIT MAHAL

Plaintiffs
and

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.73

(KAMLOOPS/THOMPSON) AND SUSAN SCALLON
Defendants

NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this
court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the
above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim
described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the
plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.

JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response
to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within
21 days after that service,
(b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United
States of America, within 35 days after that service,
(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49
days after that service, or
 -2-
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within
that time.

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff, Amaryn Suge Singh Mahal, infant by his Litigation Guardian, Sukjit
Mahal, is a student residing in Kamloops, British Columbia and has an address for
delivery at 700 - 275 Lansdowne Street, Kamloops, British Columbia.
2. The defendant, The Board Of Education Of School District No.73
(Kamloops/Thompson) is a corporation established by the School Act [R. S.B.C 1996]
c.412 (the "School Board").

3. The defendant, Susan Scallon is a teacher residing in the City ofKamloops, in the
Province of British Columbia.

4. At all material times the defendant, Susan Scallon was an employee of the School
Board and the plaintiff says, and the fact is, the defendant, Susan Scallon was at all
material times acting as an employee of the defendant, the School Board and the
defendant, the School Board is vicariously liable for the actions of the defendant,
Scallon.

5. The School Board is responsible for the management of the schools in its school
district and for the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of all property owned or
leased by the School Board.

6. The defendant, the School Board is an occupier of the property located at 821 Munro
Street, in the City ofKamloops, in the Province of British Columbia, namely South
Kamloops Secondary School, and more particularly known and described as:
a. PID: 009-795-286
b. LOT 1 DISTRICT LOT 235 KAMLOOPS DIVISION YALE DISTRICT
PLAN 8601.
c. (hereinafter referred to as "the Property")
7. The Property is within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.
337, by virtue of the defendant, the School Board's physical possession and ownership
of the Property, of which the defendant, the School Board is the registered owner and
by virtue of the defendant, the School Board's physical possession of the Property.

8. On or about the 3rd day of November, 2016, the plaintiff was at school at South
Kamloops Secondary school in his woodworking shop class.

9. The Defendant, Scallon was the teacher of the woodworking shop class for which the
Plaintiff was a student.
 -3-
10. The defendant, the School Board and Scallon, owed the plaintiff a duty of care, both
at common law and a statutory duty of care, to ensure the Plaintiff was safe from
unforeseen hazards and was properly instructed in the use of school machines, and in
particular the band saw, and properly supervised, to the standard of a reasonable and
prudent School District and teacher in the Province of British Columbia

11. The incident aforesaid was caused solely by the negligence and/or breach of the
common duty of care required by the Occupiers Liability Act, supra, of the defendant,
the School Board, particulars of which are not limited to but include:

(a) In failing to take care, or in the alternative, any reasonable care, to ensure that
the plaintiff would be reasonably safe in using the Property, and in particular,
the band saw.

(b) In failing to warn the plaintiff of the danger which the defendant School Board
knew or ought to have known.

(c) In failing to take any care, or in the alternative, any reasonable care to prevent
the injury to the plaintiff.

(d) In failing to properly instruct the plaintiff the correct way to use and inspect the
band saw.

(e) In failing to take any measures, or in the alternative, adequate measures,

whether by way of examination, inspection, or test, or otherwise, to ensure that
the property was in a reasonably safe condition;

(f) In failing to ensure the teachers, and in particular Scallon, were in the classroom
at all times when the machinery was in use.

(g) In failing to instmct the Plaintiff on the safe use of the band saw.

(h) In failing to properly instmct the plaintiff on the appropartiet use of the
machinery in the classroom.

12. In addition, or in the alternative, the incident aforesaid was caused solely by the
negligence of the defendant, Susan Scallon as follows:

(a) In failing to inspect the band saw to ensure it was safe to use before allowing
the plaintiff to use the band saw.

(b) In failing to ensure the band saw was properly in place before allowing the
plaintiff to use the band saw.

(c) In failing to adequately teach the plaintiff how to use the band saw safely.
 -4-
(d) In failing to supervise the plaintiff while she used the band saw to ensure the
safety of the plaintiff.

(e) In exposing the plaintiff to a risk of injury that the defendant, Scallon knew or
ought to have known.

(f) In failing to remain in the classroom while the Plaintiff used the band saw.

(g) In failing to properly instmct the plaintiff on proper selection of classroom

machinery and appropriate and safe use of the machinery.

(h) In allowing the use of machinery in the classroom with appropriate or any
supervision.

13. In addition, or in the alternative, the incident aforesaid was cause by the combined
negligence of the defendants, and each of them, or one, or the other, or any combination
thereof.

14. In the premises, in failing to discharge the common duty of care to the plaintiff in
breach of the Occupiers Liability Act, supra.

15. As a consequence of the incident aforesaid and in the defendants', and each of them
negligence, and/or breach of the common duty of care required by the Occupiers Liability
Act, RSBC 1996, c. 337, the plaintiff has sustained severe and painful personal injuries,
particulars of which are not limited to but include:

(a) Loss of fingers

(b) Injury to hand

(c) Anxiety; and

(d) Depression;

which injuries have caused pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, loss
of earnings and prospective earnings, and the plaintiff will continue so to suffer in the
future.

16. In further consequence of the fall aforesaid and in the defendants', and each of them
negligence, and/or breach of the common duty of care required by the Occupiers Liability
Act, supra, the plaintiff has sustained certain special damages, loss and expense for medical
treatment. The plaintiff continues to undergo such medical care and treatment and to
sustain loss and expense thereby, full particulars of which are not in the plaintiffs
possession, but will be delivered upon receipt thereof.

17. In further consequence of the fall aforesaid and in the defendants', and each of them
negligence, the plaintiff has sustained certain special damages for past and future costs of
 -5-
health care services pursuant to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, SBC 2008, Chapter
27.

18. In addition, or in the alternative, the plaintiff claims punitive damages, or in the
further alternative, aggravated damages . The facts on which the plaintiff relies in support
of his claim are as follows:

(a) In forcing the plaintiff to ride to the hospital from the school alone.

(b) The defendant Scallon telling the plaintiffs classmates the day after the incident that
it was the plaintiffs fault he was injured as the plaintiff should have used the bigger band saw
and a bigger block.

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. General damages;
2. Special damages;
3. Aggravated damages;
4. Punitive damages;
5. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79 from the 3rd day
of November, 2016 to the date of Judgment or date of payment, whichever is the
sooner;

6. Past and future costs of health care services pursuant to the Health Care Costs
Recovery Act, supra;
7. Costs;
8. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem meet and just.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

1. As a result of the fall and negligence and/or breach of the cominon duty of care required
by the Occupiers Liability Act, supra of the defendants as aforesaid, the plaintiff is entitled to
be compensated for his loss and damages.
Plaintiffs address for service:

Mair Jensen Blair LLP

Barristers & Solicitors
700 - 275 Lansdowne Street
Kamloops, BC V2C 6H6
Fax number address for service (if any): N/A
E-mail address for service (if any): N/A

Place of trial: Kamloops, BC

 -6-
The address of the registry is:

455 Columbia Street

Kamloops, BC V2C 6K4
Telephone:(250) 828-4344
Fax: (250) 828-4332 /

Dated: J.f
M
,^/2 0 /

Signature of MICHAEL J. SUTHERLAND

plaintiff 1X1 lawyer for plaintiff
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within
35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Fonn 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available,
be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
APPENDIX
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.}
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: personal injury incurred
from a fall
Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
A personal injury arising out of:
II a motor vehicle accident
II medical malpractice
another cause
A dispute concerning:
I] contaminated sites
construction defects
real property (real estate)
II personal property
I[ the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
investment losses
the lending of money
an employment relationship
II a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
a matter not listed here

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

a class action
maritime law
aboriginal law
constitutional law
 -7-
conflict of laws
none of the above
do not know

Part 4: Occupiers Liability Act, RSBC 1996,c. 337

Health Care Costs Recovery Act, SBC 2008,c. 27
Negligence Act, RSBC 1996 c.333