U of R fights jury’s $9M judgment

Award to woman left quadriplegic is ‘perverse,’ university contends

Lawyers for the University of Regina have asked a judge to overturn a jury’s decision awarding $9 million to a young swimmer paralyzed in an accident at the facility’s pool.

In October, a Regina Court of Queen’s Bench civil jury awarded Miranda Biletski a total of $9,160,584, determining the University of Regina was liable for the June 2005 accident in which Biletski was rendered a quadriplegic. The jury did not, as asked by the university, find either Biletski or her then-swim club, the Regina Piranhas Summer Swim Club, contributed to her accident, which occurred when she dove into the pool and struck the bottom.

On Monday, parties were set to return to court to debate what amounts should be ordered in relation to costs and tax gross-up, but a further issue was addressed, one that could potentially result in no money for now-Paralympian Biletski — at least for now.

Erin Kleisinger, co-counsel for the university, urged Justice Ted Zarzeczny to overturn the jury’s decision on liability and damages and either correct the verdict by providing his own or direct a mistrial.

While those sorts of remedies are often left to an upper-level court to determine — as argued by Reginald Watson, counsel for the swim club — Kleisinger said it was open to Zarzeczny should he find the jury’s findings were clearly unreasonable and “perverse.” The term “perverse,” as she defined it, refers to a verdict “bad in law, devoid of evidentiary support, or so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole could have reached it.”

Kleisinger faulted the closing arguments made by Alan McIntyre — co-counsel for Biletski — and Watson, claiming they inappropriately played on the jury’s sympathies, and were therefore inflammatory.

“The image was of two Davids taking on a corporate Goliath,” Kleisinger argued, adding that while a judge can ignore inflammatory comments, a jury cannot be expected to do the same.

She argued statements were made about Biletski’s life expectancy, her lack of resources and her courage in facing her injury — all comments Kleisinger argued unfairly influenced the jury into coming up with its verdict.

But McIntyre and Watson argued they did nothing inappropriate in their closing addresses to the jury.

“It’s OK to have passion in advocacy as long as it’s in acceptable bounds ...,” Watson said, arguing what he said was within those parameters. “Advocacy is about persuasion, and we don’t apologize for that. That’s why we’re here.”

McIntyre and Watson questioned why the university delayed making this application until now — only after the case was decided against it — rather than seeking a mistrial immediately after closing arguments. McIntyre accused the U of R of “sitting in the weeds.”

“Now that the jury has decided, my friends don’t like it ...,” he argued. “(The university) would have you take away from Miranda something that has been fairly won.”

In terms of tax gross-up and costs, McIntyre is asking for double costs exceeding $300,000 since Biletski’s initial offer to settle was not accepted. In terms of tax grossup, parties argued for amounts ranging from as low as $95,000 to as high as (in Biletski’s case) $1.4 million.