Childs v Desormeaux

Childs declined to extend social-host liability to a couple who hosted a BYOB party. There was no proximity giving rise to a duty of care to motorists injured by an impaired guest who drove home.

Hosts threw a New Year's Eve BYOB party. A guest, Desormeaux, drank heavily, drove home, and caused a head-on collision that paralysed Childs and killed another. Childs sued the hosts.

Do social hosts owe a duty of care to motorists injured by their impaired guests?

No duty in the circumstances.

Foreseeability alone is not enough; proximity is required. A social host has no positive duty to monitor guests' alcohol consumption or prevent them from driving, absent (a) creation or material contribution to the risk, (b) a paternalistic relationship, or (c) public-function or commercial-host status.

McLachlin CJ applied Cooper. Foreseeability of injury was at best equivocal: the hosts did not serve alcohol, did not know how much Desormeaux had drunk, and had not undertaken responsibility for guest safety. Proximity was absent: no special relationship gave rise to a positive obligation. Policy considerations also militated against imposing the duty.

Distinguishes Canadian social-host liability from commercial-host liability (Stewart v Pettie). Confirms reluctance to impose positive duties absent special relationship. Applied widely in subsequent BYOB and house-party cases.

Childs v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18, [2006] 1 SCR 643.

McLachlin CJ, Bastarache J, Binnie J, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Charron J