Canadian Appeals Monitor Information and Commentary on Upcoming and Recent Appeal Court Decisions

Tag Archives: negligence

Ivic. v. Lakovic: vicarious liability is no short-cut to compensation

Posted in Case Comments, Criminal, Employment Law

On June 2, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided, in what it described as a case of first impression, that a taxi company was not vicariously liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by one of its employees, absent any evidence of fault on its part.

Following the Court’s review and affirmation of the leading jurisprudence on vicarious liability, it is doubtful that any car passenger service company could be found liable for the independent and wrongful criminal conduct of its drivers.

Background

The Appellant was intoxicated and feeling unwell while at a party. The Appellant’s friend ordered … Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (21/11/2014)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in The SCC Monitor

This was a busy week at the Court, with the release of one oral decision, and eight leave-to-appeal rulings, all likely to be of interest to Canadian businesses and professionals.

The Court granted an oral decision in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association, 2014 SCC 70.  The SCC reversed the ruling of the BCCA on the grounds that the lower court had failed to give adequate deference to an arbitrator’s interpretation of a collective agreement, and had failed to recognize the differences between the purposes underlying pregnancy benefits and parental benefits.… Continue Reading

The Second Opinion: What the heck did the Ontario Court of Appeal mean when it spoke of an “Implied Statutory Duty of Care”?

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in Features, The Second Opinion

In the past decade, the staid law of negligence has undergone a number of interesting developments in Canada, focusing particularly on the threshold question of whether a duty of care is or is not owed by a particular plaintiff to a particular defendant in novel circumstances.

A recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Rausch v. The Corporation of the City of Pickering, 2013 ONCA 740, has highlighted an interesting and relatively obscure aspect of this question.… Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (20/08/2013)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in The SCC Monitor

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in The Los Angeles Salad Company Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2013 BCCA 34, thereby confirming the reluctance of Canadian Common law courts to impose a private law tort duty upon regulators acting in the public interest.

The appellants exported carrots from the U.S. to Canadian retailors. As a result of a negligent inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”), the CFIA erroneously concluded that the carrots might be contaminated which caused the appellants … Continue Reading

Australian Fraudsters: Definition of Concurrent Wrongdoer Tied to Loss

Posted in Case Comments, Contracts, Criminal

When is a fraudulent and negligent tortfeasor a “concurrent wrongdoer”? In Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees, the High Court of Australia has clarified the definition of a concurrent wrongdoer finding that liability can be apportioned under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act where the damage caused by one or more concurrent wrongdoers is the same. The reasoning behind the apportionment of loss made by the court is instructive on the meaning of concurrent wrongdoing with potential application to other common law regimes.

Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (07/12/2012)

Posted in Aboriginal, Bankruptcy and Debt, Corporate Law, Environmental, Labour and Employment, Securities, The SCC Monitor

Cases Decided

The Supreme Court of Canada released one decision this week of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.

In Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., 2012 SCC 67, the majority of the Court held that environmental protection orders issued under provincial legislation, which required an insolvent company to undertake remediation measures but which were not expressed in monetary terms, nonetheless amounted to “claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“) that could be stayed and subject to a claims procedure order in the context of CCAA proceedings.  The Court observed that not all environmental protection orders will … Continue Reading

Ontario Divisional Court to Consider Students’ Ability to Sue Schools on a Several Basis

Posted in Case Previews, Class Actions, Procedure

The Ontario Divisional Court recently granted leave to appeal in Johnston v. Sheila Morrison Schools, a certified class action involving allegations of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against a school and its headmaster. The primary issue on appeal is whether students may make claims against schools on a several basis and thereby avoid exposing their parents to counterclaims or third-party claims.

The certification order provided for three classes of plaintiffs: (i) residential students, (ii) day students, and (iii) family members of residential students. A statement of defence was filed prior to certification. Following certification, the defendants sought to … Continue Reading

SCC to Reconsider the “Material Contribution” Test for Causation

Posted in Case Previews, Class Actions, Professions, Torts

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave in an appeal that may significantly limit liability in tort.  The case, Clements v. Clements, will require the Court to reconsider the “material contribution” test for causation, and in particular, whether it should be restricted to two narrow situations.

Decisions Below

In the judgment below, Clements (Litigation Guardian of) v. Clements, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the driver of a motorcycle was not liable to his passenger for injuries sustained as the result of an accident.  The driver was travelling at excessive speeds, and had overloaded the

Continue Reading