Clements v. Clements

Clements v. Clements

But-for causation is the default test; material contribution to risk is an exceptional substitute confined to cases where multiple tortfeasors, all negligent, make it impossible for the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities which defendant caused the injury; the trial judge erred by requiring scientific reconstruction and by applying material contribution in this single-defendant case; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

Citation
2012 SCC 32
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Joan Clements (by her Litigation Guardian Donna Jardine); Respondent (defendant): Joseph Clements; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Tort (negligence, Motor Vehicle Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; LeBel and Rothstein JJ. dissenting
Legal Topics
But for Causation, Material Contribution to Risk, Causation Evidence, Multiple Tortfeasors, Scientific Reconstruction
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Civil Procedure But for Causation Material Contribution to Risk Causation Evidence Multiple Tortfeasors +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Clements (by her Litigation Guardian Donna Jardine)

Appellant (plaintiff)

Joseph Clements

Respondent (defendant)

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Tort (negligence, Motor Vehicle Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in requiring scientific reconstruction evidence to prove but-for causation
  2. 2 Whether the material contribution to risk test can replace but-for causation in this single-defendant case
  3. 3 Whether the material contribution exception is confined to cases with multiple tortfeasors where but-for causation is impossible to prove

Ratio Decidendi

But-for causation is the default test; material contribution to risk is an exceptional substitute confined to cases where multiple tortfeasors, all negligent, make it impossible for the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities which defendant caused the injury; the trial judge erred by requiring scientific reconstruction and by applying material contribution in this single-defendant case; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; LeBel and Rothstein JJ. dissenting

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Appeal allowed