Canada Case Law

Bezanson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's unchallenged findings of fact established that the hazard created by the pick-up driver's negligence had abated before the appellant moved into the left lane and that the lane change was not an evasive, 'agony of the moment' response; on that factual basis the appellant failed to prove factual causation on a balance of probabilities, and no reviewable error in law was shown.

Source excerpt

• Factual causation
• Legal causation
• Agony of the moment doctrine
• Foreseeability
• Remoteness

Read case analysis

Sherwood Real Estate Corporation v. Kingsnorth

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Although the chambers judge erred by not considering contextual indicia of proximity arising from the June 25, 2020 email, the error was not material because the apparent purpose of the respondent's representation (to induce purchase of shares in CAP) did not correspond to the pleaded detrimental reliance (entry into the SHO Agreement); reliance falling outside the purpose of the undertaking is not reasonable or foreseeable, so no proximate relationship and no duty of care exists and there is no genuine issue for trial.

Source excerpt

• Negligent misrepresentation
• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Summary judgment
• Reliance
• Foreseeability

Read case analysis

N.S. v. Ukraine International Airlines PJSC

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the trial judge: UIA failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not negligent under Article 21 of the Montreal Convention because its security risk assessment breached the standard of care (insufficient information gathering, failure to perform required safety assessment, and failure to consult the flight commander/Operational Control), those breaches were a but‑for cause of the fatalities, and the losses were not too remote, therefore the appeal is dismissed and UIA’s liability remains unlimited under the Montreal Convention.

Source excerpt

• Montreal convention article 21
• Standard of care
• Causation (but for)
• Foreseeability
• Icao document 10084 (conflict zone risk assessment)
• Security and safety risk assessments

Read case analysis

Gordica v. Mainroad Lower Mainland Contracting Limited Partnership

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a negligence claim arising from a gate arm striking a vehicle near the George Massey Tunnel, finding no breach by Mainroad and no proven causation.

• Standard of care
• Causation
• Damages
• Incident management
• Contractual standard of care
• Foreseeability

Read case analysis

Sawatzky v. St. Johns Street Liquor Store Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted the defendant’s no-evidence application in an occupiers’ liability and negligence case arising from a trip over a cord cover in a liquor store.

• Duty of care
• Independent contractor defence
• Standard of care
• Foreseeability
• No-evidence motion
• Compliance with regulatory standards

Read case analysis

Peterson v. Anderson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the facts, no novel duty of care was imposed on the social host: the harm (battery by an autonomous guest) was not reasonably foreseeable to the host and the party did not present an inherent and obvious risk; the Occupiers' Liability Act did not impose liability for the intentional tort of a third-party guest under these circumstances; Ashton Anderson was liable both for intentional battery and in negligence for kicking/pushing the plaintiff down the stairs, and the host Sydney Kenney was not liable for AA’s actions.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Foreseeability
• Proximity
• Anns/cooper test
• Occupiers' liability act s.2-5
• Battery

Read case analysis

Andrews v. Nova Scotia Health

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The gate arm struck the vehicle and the risk of such an occurrence was foreseeable; Nova Scotia Health controlled the gate and failed to take a relatively low-cost preventative measure (wrapping the arm with foam) prior to the incident, therefore breached its duty of care; the CarStar estimate was sufficiently detailed and reliable in Small Claims Court, entitling the claimants to $3,147.92 for repairs.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Foreseeability
• Causation
• Admissibility of estimates/hearsay
• Remedial measures

Read case analysis

Croke v. VuPoint System Ltd.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Bell’s implementation of a mandatory vaccination requirement was an unforeseen, supervening event outside VuPoint’s control that rendered the appellant incapable of performing the essential duties for which he was hired and thus radically altered the employment contract; accordingly the contract was frustrated and VuPoint was entitled to treat it as at an end.

Source excerpt

• Frustration of contract
• Wrongful dismissal
• Mandatory vaccination policy
• Foreseeability
• Supervening event
• Just cause

Read case analysis

Brandt v. Bye

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In a summary trial, the court dismissed a tenant’s negligence claim after a dog bite, holding the landlord took reasonable steps and the attack was not foreseeable.

• Dog bite
• Duty of care
• Foreseeability
• Scienter doctrine
• Severance of liability and quantum
• Dog-bite

Read case analysis

Tepel v. Membreno-Navarrete

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted severance and summary trial for the parents’ liability issues, finding no objectively foreseeable risk that the son would assault the plaintiff.

• Severance
• Summary trial
• Duty of care
• Foreseeability
• Social host liability
• Credibility on summary proceedings

Read case analysis