04-Nov-20

Vancouver APPENDIX “A”

Original Notice of Civil Claim filed on June 30, 2017.

Amended pursuant to Rule 6-1(1)(a) on April 2, 2019.
Further Amended pursuant to the Order of Madam Justice Tucker dated April 2, 2020

NO. S176219
VANCOUVER REGISTRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:
Christine Sandhu
PLAINTIFF
AND:
Cameron Hennessy, Samuel Murphy and The Three Brits Enterprises Ltd.

DEFENDANTS

FURTHER AMENDED NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

Parties

1. The plaintiff, Christine Sandhu is a library technician with an address for service
at: 340 – 1122 Mainland Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 5L1 Chantler & Company,
650 - 375 Water Street,Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5C6.

2. Ms. Sandhu previously worked as a host leader at Cactus Club Café, in the
English Bay location.

3. Ms. Sandhu was a British Columbia resident until 2017, at which time she
moved to Toronto where she currently resides.

4. The defendant Three Brits Enterprises Ltd. is a corporation based in Vancouver.

Three Brits owns and operates the Three Brits Pub, a restaurant and bar,
located at 1780 Davie Street, Vancouver, BC V6G 1W2 (the “Three Brits Pub”).

5. As of June 30, 2015, the defendant Samuel Murphy worked as the general
manager at Three Brits Pub. He is currently employed in a management position
with the Donnelly Group, the owner of Three Brits.

6. As of June 30, 2015, the defendant Cameron Hennessey worked as a bar

manager, server and bartender at the Three Brits Pub. His current employment
is unknown.
 -2-

Summary of the Claim

7. Ms. Sandhu claims damages against Mr. Hennessy for a sexual assault. The
sexual assault occurred on June 30, 2015 in Mr. Hennessy’s apartment. Shortly
before the assault, Ms. Sandhu and Mr. Hennessey attended Three Brits Pub,
where Mr. Hennessy was employed as a server, although he was not on shift.

8. Mr. Murphy was the general manager of Three Brits Pub. As described below,
Mr. Murphy and the Three Brits Pub created and maintained conditions where
Ms. Sandhu was put at risk of being sexually assaulted.

9. Ms. Sandhu brings a claim for damages against Mr. Hennessey for assault and
battery, sexual assault and battery, and conspiracy.

10. Ms. Sandhu brings a damages claim against Three Brits and Mr. Murphy for
conspiracy and negligence in intentionally and / or recklessly creating and
maintaining conditions that materially contributed to the sexual assault.

Culture at the Three Brits Pub

11. Three Brits Pub knows or ought to know that drinking establishments like it have
historically been – and, in many cases, continue to be – places of harassment
and assault, especially of female patrons.

12. Despite this knowledge, Three Brits Pub has failed to take adequate steps to
prevent the over-consumption of alcohol that can expose female patrons to the
risk of sexual assault. Instead, it promotes over-alcohol consumption and
condones or is wilfully blind to the risk of sexual misconduct stemming from that
over-consumption and from the environment in the bar.

13. Three Brits Pub does not provide staff with adequate training and guidelines
regarding safe alcohol consumption or prevention of sexual violence in bars. It
falls short of both the industry standard and its legal obligations, leaving its
female patrons vulnerable to harm.

14. Instead of taking adequate steps to ensure a safe environment for its female
guests, the leadership of Three Brits Ltd. perpetuates this harmful culture by
allowing and often encouraging heavy drinking to the point of extreme
intoxication, facilitating and encouraging heavy drinking between on-duty staff,
off-duty staff and restaurant staff from nearby establishments, and making jokes
and public statements about and promoting sexual harassment and sexual
assault.

Events Giving Rise to the Assault

Mr. Hennessey Had Previously Made Inappropriate Comments to Ms. Sandhu

 -3-

15. Prior to the assault, Ms. Sandhu and Mr. Hennessey were social acquaintances.
At Three Brits Pub, Mr. Hennessey had previously provided Ms. Sandhu with
free drinks, including free shots, while he was working as bar manager.

16. Prior to the assault, Mr. Hennessey had also made inappropriate comments to
Ms. Sandhu about intoxication and female genitalia, among other comments.

Ms. Sandhu Was Over-Served Alcohol at the Three Brits Pub

17. On June 30, 2015, Ms. Sandhu attended a work event at the Cactus Club Café.

18. At or about 6 pm, Ms. Sandhu left the Cactus Club Café and went to the Three
Brits Pub, located nearby. At that time, Cactus Club Café employees frequently
went to the Three Brits Pub to socialize after work. Similarly, employees of the
Three Brits Pub frequented Cactus Club Café. Many staff members in the two
establishments knew each other, and it was not uncommon for them to spend
time together or to provide each other with complimentary food or drinks.

19. When Ms. Sandhu arrived at the Three Brits Pub, she sat by herself at the bar.
She was greeted by Mr. Murphy, the pub’s general manager, who was working
that evening, Mr. Murphy provided her with a free shot of Jameson whisky.

20. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hennessy arrived at the pub through the back employee
entrance. Although he was an employee of the Three Brits Pub, he was not
working that evening.

21. Mr. Hennessey sat with Ms. Sandhu at the bar, and they engaged in
conversation. Over the course of that conversation, they exchanged numbers,
immediately following which Mr. Hennessey sent Ms. Sandhu an unsolicited text
message containing an image of Mr. Hennessey’s genitals.

22. Throughout the course of their time sitting together, Ms. Sandhu was provided
with a number of alcoholic beverages by a second bartender, Taylor Smith.
Some of those drinks were paid for and others were provided by Mr. Taylor on a
complimentary basis. Mr. Smith provided those drinks largely at Mr.
Hennessey’s direction.

23. At no point did Mr. Murphy, Mr. Taylor or any other staff take steps to ensure
that Ms. Sandhu was not overly intoxicated.

Mr. Hennessey Assaulted Ms. Sandhu

24. Later, Mr. Hennessey invited Ms. Sandhu to his apartment, which was located in
the same building as the Three Brits Pub.

25. Ms. Sandhu was overly intoxicated. By the time they reached his apartment, she
was nauseous and unwell. Mr. Hennessey suggested they have sex. She told
Mr. Hennessey that she was too intoxicated to have sex, and that she should
leave. He told her that she was making excuses.
 -4-

26. Ms. Sandhu requested Mr. Hennessey’s assistance arranging for a taxi. He
declined. Mr. Hennessey tied her feet together. She told him she needed to
vomit, and he untied them.

27. Ms. Sandhu vomited and then laid down. She expressed the need to leave.

28. Mr. Hennessey told Ms. Sandhu that she could not leave until they engaged in
sexual activity. She told him she did not consent.

29. Mr. Hennessey sexually assaulted Ms. Sandhu. During the sexual assault, he
choked her.

30. After the sexual assault, Ms. Sandhu left Mr. Hennessey’s apartment. She went
to the bathroom in the Three Brits, where she vomited again. She then took a
taxi home.

Ms. Sandhu’s Life Changed After the Assault

31. Following the assault, Ms. Sandhu experienced intense physical pain, including
from internal bruising.

32. She also reported the sexual assault to the police. Mr. Hennessey and Three
Brits Pub refused to cooperate with the police.

33. Ms. Sandhu quit her employment after the sexual assault to avoid being near
the area where the sexual assault occurred.

34. Ms. Sandhu received counselling for the post-traumatic stress symptoms she
suffered and continues to suffer from the assault.

35. Ms. Sandhu moved to Toronto in the spring of 2017 to minimize her persistent
post-traumatic stress symptoms.

36. As a result of the sexual assault, Ms. Sandhu experienced and continues to
experience, among other symptoms:

(a) physical injury;

(b) mental distress, anguish, and feelings of guilt and worthlessness;

(c) decreased energy;

(d) stress and anxiety;

(e) lasting psychological and emotional trauma;

(f) loss of enjoyment of life;

(g) difficulty sleeping and nightmares;

 -5-

(h) depression; and,

(i) an impaired ability to trust people, and to form sexual relationships with
people.

37. Ms. Sandhu also experienced a range of other harms as a result of the assault,
including loss of wages and capacity to earn income, costs associated with
therapy and medical care, and costs associated with moving to Toronto.

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Ms. Sandhu seeks from the defendants:

(a) An award for damages as follows:

(i) general and aggravated damages;

(ii) punitive damages;

(iii) loss of past and future income;

(iv) loss of earning capacity;

(v) costs of care; and,

(vi) special damages.

2. An order prohibiting the individual defendants Mr. Hennessy from having any
contact with her Ms. Sandhu;

3. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.;

4. Equitable pre-judgment interest;

5. Costs of this herein action; and,

6. Such further and other relief as the Honourable Court may deem just to award.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

Liability of Mr. Hennessey

1. Mr. Hennessey committed the torts of sexual assault and battery, assault and
battery, and conspiracy. In the alternative, Mr. Hennessey committed the tort of
intentional infliction of mental suffering.

2. Mr. Hennessey’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous. It was intentional and
was carried out with the knowledge that it would cause Ms. Sandhu physical,
mental and emotional distress, injury and illness, including depression. Further,
 -6-

Mr. Hennessey acted with reckless disregard for the consequences suffered by
Ms. Sandhu as a result of his actions.

3. Mr. Hennessey also acted in concert, by agreement or with a common design or

intention, with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Taylor engaged in unlawful
conduct, including the torts identified herein and breach of s. 61 of the Liquor
Control and Licensing Act, S.B.C. 2015, c. 19. That conduct was directed
towards Ms. Sandhu for the predominant purpose of causing injury. In the
alternative, Mr. Hennessey should have known that injury was likely to result.

4. Ms. Sandhu suffered extreme emotional distress and illness as a direct result of
Mr. Hennessey’s conduct.

5. Ms. Sandhu expressly waives any right to recover from Mr. Hennessy any
portion of the loss which Ms. Sandhu claims and which the court may attribute to
the fault, liability or responsibility of Samuel Murphy and the Three Brits
Enterprises Ltd. or any one or more of their heirs, executors, administrators,
officers, directors, servants, employees, agents, partners, successors, or
assigns for which Mr. Hennessy might reasonably be entitled to claim
contribution, indemnity or an apportionment against Samuel Murphy and the
Three Brits Enterprises Ltd. or any one or more of their heirs, executors,
administrators, officers, directors, servants, employees, agents, partners,
successors, or assigns pursuant to section 1 or 4 of the Negligence Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333 or any successor or equivalent legislation.”

Liability of Mr. Murphy

6. Mr. Murphy committed the tort of negligence.

7. He owed Ms. Sandhu a duty of care, and breached that duty by:

(a) Failing to ensure that Ms. Sandhu was not over-served with alcohol by his
bar staff; and,

(b) Failing to take other steps to ensure the safety of Ms. Sandhu.

8. Ms. Sandhu’s eventual assault and the resulting damages were the reasonably
and directly foreseeable outcome of that negligence.

Liability of Three Brits Ltd.

9. The Three Brits Ltd. committed the tort of negligence.

10. It owed Ms. Sandhu a duty of care in its capacity as a commercial host or, in the
alternative, a social host or otherwise.

11. The Three Brits Ltd. breached that duty of care and acted negligently through its
failure to:
 -7-

(a) Ensure that Ms. Sandhu was not over-served;

(b) Ensure that Mr. Hennessy was not over-served;

(c) Implement adequate supervision, monitoring and training policies and/or

systems regarding the service of alcohol and alcohol consumption;

(d) Implement adequate supervision, monitoring and training policies and/ or

systems regarding the prevention of sexual assault;

(e) Implement or follow any guidelines or policy for the appropriate response
to the report of a sexual assault;

(f) Provide available evidence during a police investigation; and,

(g) Take appropriate or reasonable steps to restore and ensure ongoing

personal safety and security at the Three Brits Pub.

12. Ms. Sandhu’s eventual assault and the resulting damages were the reasonably
and directly foreseeable outcome of that negligence.

13. The Three Brits Ltd. is also vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of Mr.
Murphy, Mr. Hennessey and its other bar staff.

Damages

14. Further to paragraphs 31 to 37, Ms. Sandhu suffered extensive damages as a

result of the events described above.

15. Ms. Sandhu is entitled to general damages to compensate her for the loss of
function and the loss of enjoyment of life suffered due to the injuries that she
sustained as a result of the defendants’ ‘s conduct.

16. She is entitled to damages as a result of her loss of income and a diminishment
in her capacity to earn income, or for a loss of income earnings in the future,
due to the injuries she sustained as a result of the conduct of the defendants.

17. Ms. Sandhu is also entitled to aggravated damages, due to the severity of the
conduct and the lack of remorse of the defendants.

18. She is entitled to special damages to compensate her expenses incurred and
that she continues to incur as a result of her injuries resulting from the conduct
of each of the defendants, such as loss and expense as a result of treatment,
medication and travelling expenses.

19. In support of her claim, Ms. Sandhu also pleads and relies on:

(a) the Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333;

 -8-

(b) the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.337;

(c) the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, S.B.C. 2015, c. 19;

(d) the common law torts of negligence, sexual assault and battery, assault
and battery, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and
conspiracy;

(e) the common law of damages; and,

(f) the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.

Plaintiff’s address for service: Karey Brooks/Aria Laskin

JFK Law Corporation
Barristers & Solicitors
340-1122 Mainland Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 5L1

Chantler & Company

Barristers & Solicitors
650 – 375 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5C6
Attention: Neil M.G. Chantler

Fax number address for service (if any): 604-687-2696

E-mail address for service (if any): alaskin@jfklaw.ca

neilchantler@chantlerlaw.ca

Place of Trial: Vancouver, BC

The address of the registry is: Law Courts
800 Smithe Street,
Vancouver BC, V6Z 2E1

Dated: June 30, 2017

Amend: April 2, 2019

Further Amended November 3, 2020

Signature of Lawyer for Filing parties
KAREY BROOKS/ARIA LASKIN

Counsel for the Plaintiff,

Neil M.G. Chantler
 -9-

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 Form 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.