Canada Case Law

British Columbia Athletic Commissioner v. Simon Fraser University

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Negligence
• Strike pleadings
• Regulator liability
• Athletic regulation

Read case analysis

Kirby v. Turner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendants owed a duty of care to their client sellers (the McNallys) but not to the non-client buyers (the Kirbys) because no proximate relationship was established; the applicable standard of care in October 2020–March 2021 permitted seller identity verification up to completion consistent with FINTRAC/CREA practices then in force, the particular email impersonation fraud was not a known industry risk at the time, the defendants met the standard, causation was not established on the plaintiffs' case, negligent misrepresentation failed for lack of a special relationship and actionable false…

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Vicarious liability
• Identity verification

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

Z.H. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Infrastructure)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed certification of a landslide negligence class action, finding no analogous Just duty and significant individual and insurance issues.

• Duty of care (just category)
• Proximity
• Deactivation of resource roads
• Insurance (vehicle) act coverage
• Certification requirements under cpa s.4
• Conflict of interest among class members

Read case analysis

Sienna v. Duckett

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontology: Ontario Court of Appeal allows a motion-to-strike appeal in part and grants leave to amend a negligence claim tied to Firearms Act licensing.

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Statutory duty
• Anns/cooper test
• Leave to amend
• Policy considerations

Read case analysis

D.C. v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The court held that military police do not owe a private law duty of care to the appellants because the duties of police are owed to the public as a whole, the appellants failed to establish the required proximity or to bring themselves within the narrow Jane Doe duty-to-warn exception, they did not properly plead systemic issues that would alter the analysis, and therefore the Federal Court correctly granted summary judgment under Rule 215 for the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Police investigations
• Summary judgment (rule 215)
• Public duty doctrine
• Duty to warn (jane doe exception)

Read case analysis

599253 Alberta Ltd. v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a negligence claim over a dam, holding Waterway Houseboats foreclosed any private duty of care to the plaintiffs on the pleaded facts.

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Privative clause
• Statutory immunity
• Failure to warn
• Freedom of information

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

Varley v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court rejected Canada’s limitations defence and found a duty of care only for children placed or adopted through Saskatchewan’s AIM program, not the broader class.

• Duty of care
• Fiduciary duty
• Discoverability
• Policy immunity (core policy decisions)
• Proximity
• Sixties scoop

Read case analysis

Knisley v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Conditional certification without an identifiable class is impermissible; the motion judge’s conditional certification was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration of whether an identifiable class exists and, if so, reassessment of common issues and preferability; separately, the pleading discloses a viable negligence cause of action as proximity and foreseeability are sufficiently pleaded.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Preferable procedure
• Service standards
• Conditional certification

Read case analysis