CA — Tort Law (AI set 1)

All cards in this deck

Cooper v Hobart (2001) — what two-stage test governs duty of care in Canada?

The SCC adopted a modified Anns/Cooper test: (1) Is there a sufficiently close and direct relationship (proximity) such that a prima facie duty arises? (2) Are there residual policy reasons to negate or limit that duty? Both stages must be satisfied: Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, [2001] 3 SCR 537.

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) — what foundational principle did Lord Atkin establish?

Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection, giving birth to the modern law of negligence: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.

Clements v Clements (2012) — what is the default causation test and when does it apply?

The default 'but for' test requires the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence; material contribution applies only in exceptional cases where but-for causation cannot be established due to factors beyond the plaintiff's control: Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32.

Cook v. Lewis (1951) — what causation problem did the SCC address?

Where two defendants each negligently fired and only one shot could have caused the plaintiff's injury, but it was impossible to identify which, the SCC held that the evidential burden shifted to each defendant to disprove causation; failure to do so rendered both jointly liable: Cook v Lewis [1951] SCR 830.

Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd (2008) — what is the remoteness test for psychiatric injury?

To establish remoteness, a plaintiff claiming psychiatric injury must show that a person of ordinary fortitude in the same circumstances would have suffered a recognized psychiatric illness; unusual personal vulnerability does not extend the defendant's liability: Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd, 2008 SCC 27.

Cooper v Hobart (2001) — why did the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers owe no duty to individual investors?

The SCC held that the Registrar's statutory duty to regulate the industry ran to the public at large, not to a specific class of investors; absent the requisite proximity between regulator and investor, no prima facie duty of care arose at the first Anns/Cooper stage: Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, [2001] 3 SCR 537.

Anns v Merton (1977) — what two-stage test did Lord Wilberforce propose, and how did Canada modify it?

Lord Wilberforce proposed: (1) sufficient proximity to raise a prima facie duty; (2) policy reasons to limit its scope or class: Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728. Canada's SCC refined stage one to require both foreseeability and proximity as distinct requirements, adding the novel-category analysis: Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79.

What is the standard of care in negligence and how is it measured?

The standard is that of the reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances — an objective measure, not the defendant's subjective belief about safety. The court asks what precautions a reasonable person would have taken in light of the foreseeable risk: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 supplies the foundational neighbour principle from which the standard flows.

Cook v Lewis (1951) — which modified causation rule did the SCC apply where two negligent hunters each fired simultaneously?

Where two defendants each acted negligently and the plaintiff cannot prove which one caused the harm, the burden of disproving causation shifts to each defendant: Cook v Lewis [1951] SCR 830. This departure from strict 'but for' prevents defendants from escaping liability by exploiting evidential uncertainty they helped create.

Mustapha v Culligan (2008) — what two-step remoteness framework must a plaintiff satisfy for nervous shock?

The plaintiff must show (1) that a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness, and (2) that the illness was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence: Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd 2008 SCC 27. Unusual personal vulnerability does not extend liability beyond what is objectively foreseeable.

What is the Wagon Mound remoteness rule and how does it apply in Canadian tort law?

A defendant is liable only for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act, not for every consequence that follows in fact. Canadian courts have adopted this foreseeability-of-type approach, as confirmed in Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd 2008 SCC 27, where unforeseeable psychiatric harm was held too remote.

What is the Salmond 'close connection' test for vicarious liability of an employer?

An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful act if it was authorised by the employer or was a mode — albeit unauthorised — of doing an authorised act, so that there is a sufficiently close connection between the wrong and the employment. Canadian courts apply this test, refined in cases addressing intentional wrongdoing, to determine whether the enterprise risk created by the employer materialised in the plaintiff's harm.

Clements v Clements (2012) — what factual scenario justifies 'but for' causation even in multi-cause accidents?

The SCC in Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32, confirmed that 'but for' causation applies even where multiple contributing factors exist, provided the plaintiff proves on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence was necessary to bring about the harm. The test is not defeated merely because other causes also contributed.

What objective standard governs negligent misrepresentation, and what reliance requirement must be met?

To establish negligent misrepresentation in Canada a plaintiff must show: a special relationship imposing a duty of care, a false or misleading statement, reasonable reliance, and resulting loss. The 'special relationship' requirement derives from the proximity analysis in Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, and mirrors the Hedley Byrne principle accepted in Canadian courts.

What is the 'thin skull' rule and how does it differ from the 'crumbling skull' doctrine in Canadian tort law?

The thin skull rule requires a tortfeasor to take the plaintiff as found, meaning pre-existing vulnerabilities that worsen the plaintiff's injury do not reduce the defendant's liability. The crumbling skull doctrine, recognised by Canadian courts, limits recovery to the extent the pre-existing condition would have independently caused harm even without the tort; the defendant is not liable for deterioration attributable solely to the pre-existing condition.

Under Canadian vicarious liability law, what must a plaintiff show beyond mere employment of the wrongdoer?

A plaintiff must establish a sufficiently close connection between the employment enterprise and the wrong, such that it would be fair to hold the employer liable. Canadian courts apply the 'strong connection' or 'Salmond close connection' test, asking whether the employer's enterprise created or materially enhanced the risk that the wrong would occur; mere opportunity afforded by employment is insufficient.

Cooper v Hobart (2001) — what is the first-stage 'proximity' analysis grounded in?

At stage one of the Anns/Cooper test, proximity is established by asking whether the parties are in a relationship of sufficient closeness — based on expectations, reliance, and the nature of the interaction — to justify imposing a duty; foreseeability of harm alone is insufficient. Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, [2001] 3 SCR 537.

Clements v Clements (2012) — when does 'but for' causation succeed in a multi-cause accident involving a single plaintiff and single defendant?

Where a plaintiff can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant's negligence was a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injury — even if other factors also contributed — the 'but for' test is satisfied and material contribution to risk is unnecessary. Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32.