Court File No.

411-11

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:

CHADRICK JOHN VEENHOF

Plaintiff

-and-

CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT LP, incorrectly named as

Cineplex Odeon Corporation and JANE DOE
Defendants

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT LP,

INCORRECTLY NAMED AS CINEPLEX ODEON CORPORATION AND
JANE DOE
1. The Defendants, Cineplex Entertainment LP, incorrectly named as Cineplex Odeon

Corporation (hereinafter Cineplex) and Jane Doe deny the allegations contained in paragraphs

1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The Defendants have no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the

Statement of Claim.

3. Cineplex Entertainment LP is a limited partnership in accordance with the laws of the

Province of Ontario and maintains its head office at 1303 Yonge Street in the City of Toronto.

At all material times, Cineplex Entertainment LP maintained a movie theatre at Cineplex Odeon

Fairway Centre located at 500 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario N2C 1X3 in the City of

Kitchener in the Province of Ontario.

4. In the alternative, if the Plaintiff, Chadrick Veenhof was injured as alleged in the

Statement of Claim, which is not admitted but specifically denied, then the accident was not the
 -2-

result of any negligence or want of care on the part of the Defendants or any person for whom

the Defendants is in law responsible.

5. The Defendants state that at 10:40 p.m. on June 22, 2009, they were advised that the

Plaintiff had collapsed in Theatre No. 4. The Defendants plead that a witness to the Plaintiffs

collapse had already called 911 and was on a cellular phone with the dispatcher. The Defendants

plead that the Plaintiff was breathing but was unresponsive. The Defendants plead that at the

instruction of the ambulance personnel, the Cineplex employee took instructions from the

ambulance attendants with regard to how to treat the Plaintiff. At all times, the instructions were

being provided by the ambulance attendants and Cineplex employees were relaying the

Plaintiffs condition to them.

6. The Defendants plead that the firefighters attended at the theatre and took over the

medical emergency treatment of the Plaintiff.

7. The Defendants plead therefore that they were at all times under the instruction of the

911 operator, ambulance attendants and then the firefighters. All medical care that was provided

to the Plaintiff until he was taken to the hospital was under the instruction of medical personnel.

The Defendants therefore deny that it breached any administration of any emergency medical

care as it was always under the instruction of emergency medical personnel.

8. Further and in the alternative, the Defendants deny that the Plaintiff sustained any loss or

damages as alleged and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

9. Further and in the alterative, the Defendants deny that if the Plaintiff, Chadwick Veenhof

did sustain the injuries as alleged, which is specifically denied, then same are excessive,
 -3-

exaggerated, remote and unforeseeable and the Plaintiff, Chadwick Veenhof has failed to

mitigate same.

10. In the alternative, the Defendants plead that if the Plaintiff, Chadwick Veenhof did

sustain the injuries as alleged, the said injuries resulted from pre-existing medical, physical or

psychological conditions. Specifically, it is alleged that the Plaintiff was under the use of illegal

substances at the time of the accident which contributed to the Plaintiffs collapse in the movie

theatre.

11. Further and in the alternative, the Defendants state that if the Plaintiff, Chadwick

Veenhof did sustain the injuries and damages as alleged, then same were the result of the

negligence of the Plaintiff Chadwick Veenhof, the particulars of which are as follows:

(a) at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had been partaking in illegal substances,

specifically marijuana which affected his cognitive, physical and psychological

functioning;

(b) the Plaintiffs girlfriend, Olivia Stahlbaum failed to provide immediate first aid

medical treatment to the Plaintiff and/or any form of CPR which led to the

Plaintiffs collapse;

(c) the Plaintiffs girlfriend, Olivia Stahlbaum failed to call an ambulance in a timely

manner;

(d) he failed to exercise proper care and control of his actions on the day in question;

(e) he placed himself in a position of danger;

 -4-

(f) he failed to use proper care for his own safety, especially in light of his usage of

an illegal substance;

(g) at the time of the alleged accident, his faculties of observation, perception,

judgment and self-control were impaired; and

(h) he was the author of his own misfortune.

12. The Defendants plead that they are entitled to a deduction for any and all collateral

benefits that were or are available to the Plaintiff, Chadwick Veenhof, including the present

value of any and all disability policies of insurance, income replacement benefit plans, long-term

disability plans or any other alternative sources of income, which may have been received or is

available for the Plaintiff to receive.

13. The Defendants plead that the Plaintiffs damages will be assessed such that any

judgment awarded in his favour will be in an amount of $100,000.00 or less, exclusive of interest

and costs and as such, the Defendants plead and rely upon the cost consequence provisions as

contained in Rule 76.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

14. Further, the Defendants plead that this matter ought to proceed way of Simplified

Procedure only.

15. The Defendants plead and rely upon the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1, as amended

and the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, as amended.

16. The Defendants propose that the action be dismissed with costs on a substantial

indemnity basis.
 -5-

17. The Defendants propose that the action be tried in the City of Kitchener.

June 15, 2012 TORKIN MANES LLP

Barristers & Solicitors
151 Yonge Street, Suite 1500
Toronto ON M5C 2W7

Sudevi Mukherjee-Gothi (45481O)

smukherjee-gothi@torkinmanes.com

Tel: 416-777-5427
Fax: 1-888-587-9137

Lawyers for the Defendants,

Cineplex Entertainment LP, incorrectly named as
Cineplex Odeon Corporation and Jane Doe

TO: PRESZLER LAW FIRM

Barristers & Solicitors
65 Queen Street West
Suite 400
Toronto, ON M5H 2M5

David E. Preszler (55640G)

Tel: 416-364-2000
Fax: 416-364-7027

Lawyers for the Plaintiff,

Chadrick John Veenhof

RCP-E 18B (July 1, 2007)

CHADRICK JOHN VEENHOF -and- CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT LP, incorrectly named as Cineplex
Odeon Corporation et al.
Plaintiff Defendants
Court File No. 411-11

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT
GUELPH

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

TORKIN MANES LLP

Barristers & Solicitors
151 Yonge Street, Suite 1500
Toronto ON M5C 2W7

Sudevi Mukherjee-Gothi (45481O)

smukherjee-gothi@torkinmanes.com
Tel: 416-777-5427
Fax: 416-863-0305

Lawyers for the Defendants,

Cineplex Entertainment LP, incorrectly named as
Cineplex Odeon Corporation and Jane Doe

RCP-E 4C (July 1, 2007)

29746.0012/4608716_.1