- The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, May 31, 2006

~ PUBLISHER: ROD LINK.

oe ADDRESS: 3210 Clinton Street Terrace, B. C. - V8G 5R2-
va TELEPHONE: (250) 638-7283 + FAX: (250) 638-8432
WEB: www.terracestandard. com, _
“EMAIL: newsroom@terracestandard. com woe

A sad farewell

"Last week’s front page image of hundreds of
| thousands of dollars worth of log gging equipment
| léaving. the north on‘barges to be sold off in Van- .

~ couver is a stark reminder of just how ravaged the »

: forest: industry’ in Terrace and other. parts of this -

-Yegion,has become.

| The photo of the barges transporting Bear Creek.

oe Contracting’ s equipment away from.a once pros-_
_ -~perous ‘forest industry speaks volumes. :

 . Itwasn’tjustthe equipment thatleftthe area, but.
with it, millions in high paying jobs. The owner
‘of the grapple yarders, ‘log trucks and other ma-

an chines, Tan Munson, makes..an important. point:

wae “each ‘of. those. machines is worth exponentially: }
<> more when operating, than théy’ll ever be worth.
i ‘on. resale.’ ‘Munson, a second generation logger,

. fedrs'he won’t be able to pass the family business

; -down to his son, in the wake of dramatic forest
reform that virtually cut the livelihoods ‘of many.

7 area loggers out-from beneath them. -

Bear Creek’s not the first logging company.

. to fold up ‘its tent in Terrace. Several years ago,

: Interfor shut its office here and: moved ‘its work
«Out: of Terrace.’ ‘Alm-Wood Contracting. saw the
writing on the wall and centralized its work on’
"Vancouver Island. And Lloyd. Hull, a prominent.
: logging” contractor, has traded in his work boots.
to mn a, local. restaurant. Don’t forget the small;’ |.
: independent. fallers who have lost their jobs.:Or
_ how about the many log truck drivers who have"

--gone bankrupt in the last several years?

‘ The Terrace Lumber Company has faced mam-

moth obstacles since it reopened the former Skee-
na Cellulose/New Skeena Forest Products saw-
: mill i in late August 2005.

_ - Exorbitant softwood lumber duties, the; strong gs.
_ Caniadian ‘dollar: asoft: international lumber mar- |.
ket, difficulties securing wood to cut and trouble’

finding a place to unload its hog fuel, have made
this a trying effort for the group of local investors
_who rescued the mill from auction last year.
. Combined with sweeping provincial. forest
reforms, the loss of virtually perpetual logging
contracts after the bankruptcy of Skeena Cellulose
and its recreation as New Skeena Forest Products,
and its all a reminder that the face of the north-
- west economy has changed dramatically. —
__ So'when Ian Munson asks: what industry will
-Teplace t those high paying forestry jobs, it’s a crit-
ical question’ that must be answered if Terrace is
“tO prosper moving forward...
_» The city is taking an important step in putting
— together a plan to develop the industrial lands at
_ the airport. It has the potential to’ draw industry
and create jobs. a
- There’s no doubt it is. a long- term vision but if
the planning doesn’t start now it will take many
-- more years for Terrace to catch up to the econom-
ic boom seen elsewhere. in the province.

PUBLISHER/EDITOR:
_ Rod Link
ADVERTISING MANAGER: Brian Lindenbach
* PRODUCTION MANAGER: Edouard Credgeur _
NEWS: Sarah A. Zimmerman

COMMUNITY: Dustin Quezada
NEWS/SPORTS:: Margaret Speirs
_.. FRONT OFFICE: Darlene Keeping, Carolyn Anderson
CIRCULATION SUPERVISOR: Alanna Bentham

ADVERTISING CONSULTANTS:

_. Bert Husband, Ellie Higginson 2005 WINNER
~ AD. ASSISTANT: Sandra Stefanik NEWSPAPERS

COMPETITION

PRODUCTION: Susan Credgeur

SUBSCRIPTION RATES BY MAIL:
. $57.94 (+$4.06 GST)=62.00 per year; .
~ Seniors $50.98 (+$3.57 GST)=54.55;
Out of Province $65.17 (+$4.56 GST)=69.73

“Outside of Canada (6 months) $156.91(+10.98 GST)=167. 89

, MEMBER OF
B.C, AND-YUKON COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ASSOCIATION,
CANADIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ASSOCIATION
AND
B.C. PRESS COUNCIL (www.bopresscouncil.org)

Serving the Terrace and Thomhill area. Published on Wednesday of @®

each week at 3210 Clinton Street, Terrace, British Columbia, V8G 5R2. Black Press
Stories, photographs, illustrations, designs and typestyies in the Terrace Standard are the property of the copy-
right holders, including Black Press Ltd., its illustration repro services and advertising agencies.

Resroduction in whole or in part, without vritien permission, is specifically prohibited.

Authorized as second-class mail pending the Post Office Department, for payment of postage in cash.

. Special thanks to all our contributors and
correspondents for their time and talents

Laface v. McWilliams.

BECAUSE Tae NATIONAL, MEDIA.

1S BIASED. AGAINGT US, WE DEUdED |
\. To TAKE OUR MESSAGE out

ON THE ROAD... ‘

| ARE You: .

GETTING AL

THIS. DOWN?

Social hosts can ‘breathe easier

“TWO. SIGNIFICANT. ‘court

_ eases were decided recently i in |

the context of host liability as‘a _
result-of serving alcohol. One
occurred in the so-called com-

‘mercial host context and the = |

other involved a social host.’
“These decisions are im-.
portant to the employment

setting because, the emerging ©

“employer host” context falls
somewhere between’ the com-

- mercial and social | ‘settings.
These recent decisions can sig-:
‘nal the direction courts might |
take in deciding cases. arising -

in the employer host situation.
The first . decision . ‘was
made by the »B.C. - Court. ‘of
Appeal in the case known as ;
That .
case involved a claim against
a number of parties, one of.
which was the Steveston Ho-
tel: McWilliams had been at

. the hotel’s pub and drove away
~ drunk. ‘Just two blocks away,

he ploughed ‘into a group of ©
pedestrians, severely injuring
some of them. |

The injured parties sued
both McWilliams and the Ste-

veston. The B.C. Court of Ap- -

peal determined that McWil-
liams was “grossly” impaired
at the time of the accident.
It found that the ‘hotel didn’t
meet the required standard of
care. In particular, it did not»
appropriately monitor McWil-.
liams’s. alcohol consumption
while in the pub and failed to
notice his intoxication state. .
Because McWilliams’s

* condition had been brought to’
_ the pub’s attention by another

patron, the Court found’ the:
hotel had. actual knowledge
of McWilliams’s © drunken
state and of the probability he
would drive away unless pub-

‘URBAN DWELLERS who

_ live alone may think side-by-

‘side neighbours -keep them
safer than farmers, where the
next family may live - miles
away. News . articles dispute

that belief.

Just this month, an 88- ~year-
old woman in Surrey was

found Sunday, after she. had
_ fallen Tuesday and was un- -
- able to get up to call for help. +
~ Only when neighbours noticed .

newspapers piling up: on her
doorstep did someone check
on her, get a key, and find her
lying on the floor, dehydrated.

There have been other cas-.
es:. the Kelowna-area mobile

'-home dweller whose partially

mummified body wasn’t found
until a realtor walked in with a
prospective buyer.

The retired Prince Rupert
longshoreman whose mummi-
fied body was tripped over by
New Year’s Eve burglars nine
months after he died in his
bedroom. The post office dis-

continued his mail service, be-

lieving he might have moved |
back to Italy. His pension
cheques kept coming, paying

"ROBERT SMITHSON

staff. intervened. It ruled that -

the hotel should have prevent-
ed McWilliams from driving.

_ The hotel had been held by ©

a lower court to be 50 per cent
liable for the accident (McWil-
liams carried the other half of
liability). This was one of the
highest attributions of liability

‘to a commercial drinking ‘es-

tablishment in Canada.

The Court of Appeal up-
held this level of liability,
stating that McWilliams had

‘been exhibiting obvious signs

of intoxication — staggering,

‘slurring of speech — while in

the pub and that this behav-
iour was apparent even to ca-

-sual, untrained observers. The

hotel knew, or ought to have
known, of McWilliams’s in-

toxication and the real risk

that he might drive. Although
it was obliged to do something
to prevent: him from. driving,
the hotel staff did nothing.

The second case was the’

decision by ‘the Supreme
Court of Canada, Childs v.

Desormeaux. This high profile:

case addressed the question of

whether private home owners ©
— so-called social hosts — can -

TH ROUGH BIFOCALS
CLAUDETTE SANDECKI

‘his hydro bills.. Newspapers

piled up and blew about the
street. Neighbours had no in-
kling of his whereabouts.

The Chicago man who sat
dead in his easy chair holding
the daily newspaper for four
years until his house was put

’ up for tax sale. The medical

examiner identified his body
from all that was left — his
skeleton and his teeth.

And the elderly Smithers
couple who were imprisoned
in their bathroom for five days

_ewan woman farming alone

“be liable for damages when. a

‘drunken guest causes injuries.

After leaving a. party held

ina private home, Desormeaux —

(who was impaired at the time)

‘drove his vehicle into.oncom-

ing traffic and. collided head-
on with another vehicle. One
passenger in the other vehicle.

was killed and the other three
were seriously injured.

Desormeux ‘had consumed

. about 12 beers in a span’ of two
and a half hours.”

When he left
the party, his blood’ alcohol
level was almost three times
the legal limit. —

‘The: party’s host had sup-

plied almost no alcohol as it.

was a “BYOB” party. In this
circumstance, the Court con-~
cluded that simply holding a-
private party where alcohol
is consumed is not sufficient
to implicate the host in the

creation of:risk to.-third .par~s. .,

ties. Private hosts neither-un-".
dertake, nor are expected, to
monitor the conduct of guests
on behalf of the public.

. The Supreme Court of
Canada summarized its find-'
ings: “A person hosts a party.
Guests drink alcohol. An ine-
briated guest drives away and
causes an accident in which
another person is injured.- Is.
the host liable to the person
injured? Iconclude that as a
general rule, a social host does -
not owe:a duty of care to a per-
son injured by a guest who has

- consumed alcohol...” °

The Court did leave open

‘the possibility of liability for

social. hosts in different cir-
cumstances, stating that the .
host may be liable if his con-
duct implicates him in creating

or heightening risk. For exam- —
ple, when the host keeps serv-

when the door handle mal-
functioned.

Contrast those city experi-
ences with Rae, a Saskatch-

while her husband works in
the oil patch and comes home
only on weekends.

Rae feeds cows, calves

-and horses using a tractor and

front-end loader. “Safety is’
the utmost important thought
in my mind at all times,” she
says. “Even one slip of the foot

when getting in or out of the ,

tractor could end up smacking
my head on the loader frame
or the steps and me lying there
unconscious.’

_ Phone . coverage in their
area is so patchy she doesn’t

carry a cell.

Did that put her out tof touch
in case of trouble? Not at all.

‘Neighbours insisted she call .
them every day as soon as she
got in from finishing chores.
If she didn’t call in by lunch,
they would be on their way
over to check on her, in case
she was having problems.

Already she has been late
several times because of calv-

. ity to parties whose negligence
‘in supplying alcohol results in

ing alcohol to a visibly inebri- 7

- ated person. knowing. that she -_

will be driving home..

_- What do the ‘two decisions .
tell us?. The Court of Appeal i
decision suggests a trend to- >
wards attributing greater liabil- «

injuries to innocent persons.
The Supreme Court decision

i
j ote
i
5

indicates that courts won *teas-- ;

ily come to the conclusion that , .
the scope of liability.in such,

_cases should be extended. :
_ This applies to the employ-

care.has already been found”

to exist when the employer* | :

hosts an event: where alcohol
is served. The ‘employer’s !

. ment context in that a duty of’ ; 7

duty is to actively prevent his ’

employees (or someone else) |
being injured due to alcohol .
consumption at a staff event.
wit SOsu:., the: - Childs-ict v.

‘Desormeaux decision probably *
won’t greatly concern employ- :
ers but the Laface v. McWil- :
liams one, however, should '

send a message to employers

greater portion of the liability -
as a result of future accidents -

that they can expect tocarrya; ~

involving impaired employees .

leaving staff events.

Eliminating alcohol from -:

company events is. the only

sure way for employers to~

avoid this sort .of liability?

With court decisions. placing | 7
‘more of the blame on the host

(once a duty of care has been —
found to exist) employers are —

well-advised to adopt the “bet-

ter safe than sorry’’ approach.
Robert Smithson is a part-:

ner at Pushor Mitchell LLP in

Kelowna practicing exclusive- .

ly in the area of labour and ~ Sd
employment law.

ing difficulties, or trouble with °—
‘a piece of machinery. Neigh- «|

bours showed up to make sure

Closeness deceiving to measure.

she was okay and to lend a -

~ hand.

Those are just the self-ap-

pointed Good Samaritans. .
Any ‘farmer driving past a

neighbour’ s farmstead notes i. §
whether the truck has moved, * «*

the tractor. is if a different .
place, or a’pasture gate is open. —

(Nosiness and caring are close
allies.)
-Rae’s. postmaster would
question friends if her mail
wasn’t picked up: The store
clerk would ask if anyone had

seen her in the last 24 hours. ©

At the coffee shop, their Lacey

would pour out coffee along 7

with her. worries about Rae’s -

absence. a

~ Even with miles between, at

country neighbours ride herd 2 -
on each other’s wellbeing and qf

probably react quicker than ur-
ban dwellers might. —
The next teacher who as-

signs students to debate the ,,

merits of city living versus ©
country living wants to men-
tion the safety issue.