DRT 6567 : Responsabilité civile (Torts)Fall 2013
PROFESSOR PAUL DALY
CREDITS: 3
SCHEDULE: Mondays, B-3325, September 9 – December 2, 16.00-19.00 (Group A)
Wednesdays, B-3225, September 4 – December 4, 13.00-16.00 (Group B)
CONTACT: Room A-7450
Tel.:514.343.6098
Email : paul.daly@umontreal.ca
COURSE WEBSITE: https://studium.umontreal.ca/
PLEASE VISIT THE WEBSITE WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASSES TO RESOLVE ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY ARISE
OFFICE HOURS: Mondays,14.00-15.45
Please note that I do not answer substantive questions by email.It will be more productive if we run through any problems you have in person.
REQUIRED TEXTS: Philip H. Osborne, The Law of Torts, Irwin Law, 4th ed., 2011.
Allen M. Linden, Lewis N. Klar and Bruce Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law: Cases, Notes and Materials,
LexisNexis, 13th ed., 2009
A Note on the Readings
In the syllabus I have given a comprehensive list of all the readings relevant to the topics we will be discussing.
You should read the relevant parts from the Osborne text before each class. I have identified these parts in the syllabus. The order of the syllabus does not follow the order of the Osborne text. I appreciate that this may be frustrating to those used to the order of the Code Civile! Common law is much more chaotic and no two textbooks treat the subject in quite the same order. I chose to assign the Osborne text because it is very clear and should give you a good basic understanding of the common law of torts.
In the Linden, Klar and Feldthusen text, you will find excerpts from many of the cases listed in the syllabus. Some extracts are long, some are short. Sometimes the cases identified in the syllabus are briefly summarized in a “Notes” section. I chose to assign the Linden, Klar and Feldthusen text because it gathers together the main cases and will save you the trouble of looking them up in the library or online. You should read the extracts from the cases listed in the syllabus, preferably before each class, certainly after each class and especially if you are unclear about what a particular case means. You may wish to read the whole of a “Notes” section if you are interested in a particular topic, but you are not obliged to do so. Concentrate on the cases listed in the syllabus. If you are unsure about the location of a case, look it up in the index. Some of the cases and statutory provisions listed are not in the books. You need not worry about reading these cases in advance of class, but you may need to read them after class if you are unclear about something. If they are unavailable and you have difficulty finding them in the library or online, please let me know and I will make electronic versions available on Studium.
Standards & Evaluation
Your final grade depends upon performance in 2 components of the course : an assignment to be completed after reading week (30%) and a final examination held in December (70%).
1. Introduction
A. Theoretical Framework: Week 1
Reading: Osborne, 1-23; LKF (optional), 1-36
1. The “law of tort” or the law of “torts”
2. The Nature of Tort
i. Historical development
ii. Corrective justice
iii. Distributive justice
3. Types of liability
i. Intentional torts
ii. Negligence
iii. Strict liability
4. Constitutional Aspects
5. Relationship between Tort Law and Contract Law
- Central Trust v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147
- B.G. Checo International v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12
6. Functions of Tort Law
i. Compensation
ii. Deterrence
iii. Education
iiii. Market Deterrence
iiiii. Psychological Function
iiiiii. Regulation
- Tort law versus public law
- Tort law versus criminal law
2. Intentional Torts
B. Interference with the Person: Week 2
Reading: Osborne, 249-262; 266-274; 323-324; LKF (extracts from key cases), 37-82; 101-102
1. Intention (A requirement common to all the intentional torts)
i. Onus of proof
- Dahlberg v. Naydiuk (1970), 10 D.L.R. (3d) 319
- Goshen v. Larin (1975), 56 D.L.R. (3d) 719
ii. Involuntary actions
- Stokes v. Carlson (1951), 240 S.W. 2d 132
- Smith v. Stone (1647), Sty. 65, 82 E.R. 533*
- Tillander v. Gosselin, [1967] 1 O.R. 203
iii. Mental Illness
- Lawson v. Wellesley Hospital (1975), 61 D.L.R. (3d) 445
- Squitteri v. de Santis (1976), 15 O.R. (2d) 416
iv. Constructive intention
- Garratt v. Dailey (1955), 46 Wash. 2d 197
v. Transferred Intent
- Carnes v. Thompson (1932), 48 S.W. 2d 903
vi. Foreseeability
- Bettel v. Yim (1978), 20 O.R. (2d) 617
2. Battery
i. Harmful or offensive contact
- Wilson v. Pringle, [1986] 2 All E.R. 440
ii. Beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct
- Coward v. Baddeley (1859), 157 E.R. 927
- Cole v. Turner (1704), 90 E.R. 958
- Collins v. Wilcock, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172
iii. Direct or indirect force
- Alcorn v. Mitchell (1872), 63 Ill. 553
iv. Physical contact with skin unnecessary
- Sirois v. Gustafson, [2003] 3 W.W.R. 110
v. No knowledge requirement
- Schweizer v. General Hospital (1974), 6 O.R. (2d) 606
vi. Sexual contact
- M. (K) v. M. (H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R.
3. Assault
i. Apprehension of battery
- Bruce v. Dyer (1966), 58 D.L.R. (2d) 221*
- Stephens v. Myers (1830), 172 E.R. 735
- Brady v. Schatzel, [1911] Q.S.R. 206
ii. Imminency
- Tuberville v. Savage (1699), 86 E.R. 684*
iii. Fighting Words
- Mainland Sawmills v. U.S.W. Local 1-3567 (2007), 52 C.C.L.T. (3d)* 161
4. False Imprisonment
i. Complete Restraint
- Bird v. Jones (1845) 115 E.R. 668*
- Chaytor v. London, New York and Paris Association of Fashion (1961), 30 D.L.R. (2d) 527
ii. By means of act or omission
- Martin v. Houck (1906), 141 N.C. 317
- Campbell v. S.S. Kresge Co. Ltd. (1976) 74 D.L.R. (3d) 717
- Herd v. Weardale, [1915] A.C. 67
iii. Knowledge of plaintiff
- Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd. (1920), 122 L.T. 44
- Murray v. Ministry of Defence, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 692
iv. No reasonable means of escape
- McFadzean v. Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, [2007] VSCA 289
- Wright v. Wilson (1699), 91 E.R. 1394
- Whittaker v. Sanford (1912), 110 Me. 77
v. Absence of lawful authority
- Lumba (WL) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,[2011] UKSC 12
5. Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress
i. A gap in tort protection?
- Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57
ii. Extreme and outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm
- Bielitski v. Obadiak (1922), 65 D.L.R. 627
- Janvier v. Sweeney, [1919] 2 K.B. 316
- Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 474
iii. Harm
- Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99
6. Discrimination
- Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181
7. Privacy
i. Intrusion on Seclusion
- Jones v. Tsige (2012), 346 D.L.R. (4th) 34*
ii. Appropriation
- Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1973), 1 O.R. 225
- Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps (1977), 4 C.C.L.T. 20
iii. Statutory Intervention
- Privacy Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-125
C. Defences to Intentional Torts: Week 3
Reading: Osborne, 279-294; LKF (extracts from key cases), 103-156
1. Consent
i. Nature of consent
- O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship (1891), 154 Mass. 272*
- Allan v. New Mount Sinai Hospital (1980), 28 O.R. (2d) 356
ii. Onus on defendant
- Hambley v. Shepley (1967), 63 D.L.R. (2d) 94
- Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 551
iii. Withdrawal of consent
- Ciarlariello v. Schacter, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119
iv. Invalidity of Consent
- Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226
- Johnston v. Wellesley Hospital, [1971] 2 O.R. 103
v. Scope of consent
2. Sports
- Agar v. Canning (1965), 54 W.W.R. 302
- Matheson v. Governors of Dalhousie University (1983), 25 C.C.L.T. 91
- Colby v. Schmidt (1986), 37 C.C.L.T. 1
3. Hospitals
- Malette v. Shulman (1990), 72 O.R. (2d) 417*
- Marshall v. Curry, [1933] 3 D.L.R. 260*
- Murray v. McMurchy, [1949] 2 D.L.R. 442
- Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880
4. Defence of the Person
i. Self-defence
- Complete defence
- Cockroft v. Smith (1705), 88 E.R. 872*
- Must be necessary and reasonable
- McDonald v. Hees (1974), 46 D.L.R. (3d) 720
- Provocation is not a defence
- Evans v. Bradburn (1915), 25 D.L.R. 611
- Hurley v. Moore (1993), 18 C.C.L.T. (2d) 78
ii. Defence of third parties
- Babiuk v. Trann (2005), 247 D.L.R. (4th) 530
- Gambriell v. Caparelli (1975), 7 O.R. (2d) 205
5. Defence of Property
i. Right of possession or presence
- McDonald v. Hees (1974), 46 D.L.R. (3d) 720
ii. Request to leave
- Green v. Goddard (1704), 91 E.R. 540*
iii. Reasonable force
- Bird v. Holbrook (1828), 130 E.R. 911*
- Cummings v. Grainger, [1976] 3 W.L.R. 84
6. Necessity
i. Imminent peril
- Southwark L.B.C. v. Williams, [1971] 2 W.L.R. 467*
ii. Onus on the defendant
- Sherrin v. Haggerty, [1953] O.W.N. 962
iii. Public necessity
- Dwyer v. Staunton, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 393
- The King’s Prerogative in Saltpetre (1606), 77 E.R. 1294
iv. Private necessity
- Depue v. Flatau (1907), 100 Minn. 299
- Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation (1910), 109 Minn. 456
- Romney Marsh v. Trinity House (1870), L.R. 5 Exch. 204
7. Legal Authority
i. Police officers
- Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 25, 494, 495
- Koechlin v. Waugh (1957), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 447
- Christie and another v. Leachinsky, [1947] A.C. 573
- Reynen v. Antonenko, [1975] 5 W.W.R. 10
ii. Others
- Hayward v. F.W. Woolworth (1979), 8 C.C.L.T. 157
- Dendekker v. F.W. Woolworth, [1975] 3 W.W.R. 429
8. Mistake
- Ranson v. Kitner (1888), 31 Ill. App. 241
- Chatterton v. Gerson, [1981] Q.B. 432
- Ashley v. C.C. Sussex, [2008] 1 A.C. 962
D. Economic Torts: Week 4
Reading: Osborne, 314-338; LKF (extracts from key cases), 621-652; 710-711
1. Deceit
i. False Representation
- C.R.F. Holdings v. Fundy Chemical International, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 385
- Crozman v. Ruesch, [1994] 4 W.W.R. 116
- Abel v. McDonald, [1964] 2 O.R. 256
- Sidhu Estate v. Bains, [1996] 10 W.W.R. 590
ii. Knowingly false
- Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 A.C. 337*
iii. Intention to deceive
- Vulcan Metals v. Simmons Manufacturing, 248 F. 853 (1918)
- Keleman v. El-Homeira (1999), 49 C.C.L.T. (2d) 188
iv. Inducement to act
- Peek v. Gurney (1873), L.R. 6 H.L. 377
- Young v. McMillan (1894), 40 N.S.R. 52
- Sorenson and Sorenson v. Kaye Holdings, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 193
v. Damage
- Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management), [1997] A.C. 254
2. Injurious Falsehood
i. Untrue statements causing economic loss
- Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q.B. 524
ii. Malice
- Manitoba Free Press v. Nagy (1907), 39 S.C.R. 340
iii. Special damage
- Frank Flaman Wholesale v. Firman (1982), 20 C.C.L.T. 246
3. Passing off (NOTE: many of the English cases listed here, which I will describe in class, are not in the textbooks) NOT COVERED
i. Distinctive reputation
- Reckitt & Colman Products v. Borden, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 491
ii. Actual or probable confusion
- Parker-Knoll v. Parker-Knoll International, [1962] R.P.C. 265
- Granada Group v. Ford, [1972] F.S.R. 103
- Consumers Distributing v. Seiko Time Canada (1984), 10 D.L.R. (4th) 161
- Erwen Warnink v. Townend & Sons (Hull), [1979] A.C. 731
iii. Misrepresentation to prospective customers
- Bernardin v. Pavilion Properties, [1967] R.P.C. 581
iv. Causing or threatening actual damage to business or goodwill
- Cadbury-Schweppes v. Pub Squash, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 193
- Kirkbi v. Ritvik Holdings, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302
4. Conspiracy
i. Concerted action
- Mogul Steamship v. McGregor Gow, [1892] A.C. 25
- Crofter Hand-Woven Harris Tweed v. Veitch, [1942] A.C. 435
ii. Conspiracy to injure
- Canada Cement Lafarge v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate (1983), 24 C.C.L.T. 111*
- Helmy v. Helmy, [2000] O.J. No. 4456
- Ontario (Attorney-General) v. Dieleman (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 449
- Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon (1998), 39 O.R. (3) 620
iii. Unlawful means conspiracy
- Canada Cement Lafarge v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate (1983), 24 C.C.L.T. 111
- Lonhro v. Fayed, [1991] 3 W.L.R. 188
iv. Abolition?
- Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 899
5. Intimidation
i. Coercion to refrain from doing an act
- Morgan v. Fry, [1968] 3 All E.R. 452
ii. Threat to use unlawful means
- Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C. 1129*
- Central Potash v. Attorney-General for Saskatchewan, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42
iii. Compliance with the demand
- J.T. Stratford & Son v. Lindley, [1965] A.C. 269
- Mintuck v. Valley River Band No. 63A (1977), 2 C.C.L.T. 1
6. Interference with contract
i. Breach of valid contract
- Lumley v. Gye (1853), 2 Bl. & Bl. 216*
- OBG v. Allan, [2008] 1 A.C. 1
- Torquay Hotel v. Cousins, [1969] 2 Ch. 106*
ii. Knowledge
- Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495
- Ed Miller Sales & Rentals v. Caterpillar Tractor (1996), 30 C.C.L.T. (2d) 1
iii. Intention
- OBG v. Allan, [2008] 1 A.C. 1
- South Wales Miners’ Federation v. Glamorgan Coal, [1905] A.C. 239
iv. Wrongful Inducement
- D.C. Thomson & Co. v. Deakin, [1952] 2 All E.R. 361*
v. Justification
- Brimelow v. Casson, [1924] 1 Ch. 302
- Gunn v. Barr, [1926] 1 D.L.R. 855
- Thermo King v. Provincial Bank of Canada (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 369
7. Interference with Economic Interests by Unlawful Means
i. As a distinct tort?
- OBG v. Allan, [2008] 1 A.C. 1
- Reach M.D. v. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada (2003), 227 D.L.R. (4th) 458
- Alleslev-Krofchak v. Valcom (2010), 322 D.L.R. (4th) 193
ii. Scope
- Tuttle v. Buck (1909), 119 N.W. 946
- Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon (1998), 39 O.R. (3) 620
- Millar v. Bassey, [1994] E.M.L.R. 44
E. Defamation: Week 5
Reading: Osborne, 404-427; LKF (extracts from key cases), 653-710
1. The distinction between libel and slander
- Meldrum v. Australian Broadcasting, [1932] V.L.R. 425
- Princess Alexandrovna v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (1934), 50 T.L.R. 581
2. Defamatory statement(s)
i. Test
- Colour Your World v. C.B.C. (1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 27
- Gardiner v. John Fairfax & Sons (1942), 42 S.R. 171
- Peck v. Tribune (1909), 214 U.S. 185
ii. Applications
- Ralston v. Fomich (1992), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 166
- Byrne v. Deane, [1937] 1 K.B. 818
- Warren v. Green (1958), 15 D.L.R. (2d) 251
- Caldwell v. McBride (1988), 45 C.C.L.T. 150
- Grant v. Reader’s Digest Association (1945), 1 F. 2d 733
- Talbot v. Hermitage Golf Club, [2012] IEHC 372
3. Identification
i. Person
- Hill v. Cork Examiner, [2001] 4 I.R. 219
ii. Group libel
- Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper, [1944] A.C. 116
- Booth v. B.C. Television Broadcasting (1982), 139 D.L.R. (3d) 88
- Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia C.M.R., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214*
4. Publication
i. Reasonable and probable consequences
- McNichol v. Grandy, [1931] S.C.R. 696
- McNabb v. Equifax Canada, [2000] 6 W.W.R. 562
ii. Power to act
- Byrne v. Deane, [1937] 1 K.B. 818
iii. Accidental publication
- Hall v. Balkind, [1918] N.Z.L.R. 740
iv. Accidentally defamatory material
- Cassidy v. Daily Mirror, [1929] 2 K.B. 331*
- Hulton v. Jones, [1910] A.C. 20*
v. Innocent dissemination
- Viztelly v. Mudie’s Select Library, [1900] 2 Q.B. 170*
- Balbanoff v. Fossani (1948), 81 N.Y.S. 2d 732
- Crookes v. Newton, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269*
5. Defences
i. Justification
- M’Pherson v. Daniels (1829)
- Edwards v. Bell (1824), 1 Bing. 403
- Alexander v. N.E. Railway (1865), 6 B. & S. 340
ii. Absolute privilege
- Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
- Guergis v. Novak, 2013 ONCA 449
iii. Qualified privilege
- Sun Life Assurance v. Dalrymple, [1965] S.C.R. 302
- Personal interest
- Pleau v. Simpson-Sears (1976), 15 O.R. (2d) 436
- Speaker and recipient have common interest
- Bereman v. Power Publishing (1933), 27 P. 2d 749
- Chapman v. Lord Ellesmere, [1932] 2 K.B. 431
- Bureau v. Campbell, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 907
- Moral or legal duty to protect the interest of another
- Watt v. Longsdon, [1930] 1 K.B. 130
- Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309
- Robshaw v. Smith (1878), 38 L.T. 423
- Public Interest
- Globe and Mail v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203
- Personal interest
iv. Responsible communication on a matter of public interest
- Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1010
- Jameel (Mohammed) v. Wall Street Journal, [2007] 1 AC 359
- Grant v. Torstar, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640*
- Public interest
- Due diligence
- Seriousness of allegation
- Public importance of matter
- Urgency
- Status and reliability of source
- Where plaintiff’s side was sought and accurately reported
- Whether inclusion of defamatory statement justifiable
- Public interest in reportage rather than truth
- Any other relevant circumstances
- Quan v. Cusson, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 712
- Hunter v. Chandler, 2010 BCSC 729
- Shavluk v. Green Party of Canada, 2010 BCSC 804
v. Fair comment
- Factual basis
- Barltrop v. C.B.C. (1978), 86 D.L.R. (3d) 61
- Legitimate opinion honestly held
- McQuire v. Western Morning News, [1903], 2 K.B. 100
- Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067
- W.I.C. Radio v. Simpson, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420
vi. Apologies are not a defence
- Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 9
3. Negligence
F. Negligence: Duty of Care Week 6
Reading: Osborne, 67-84; 161-174; LKF (extracts from key cases), 189-200; 285-359
1. Existence of a duty
i. The neighbour principle
- Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562
ii. Anns
- Anns v. Merton L.B.C., [1978] A.C. 728
- Kamloops v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2
iii. Caparo
- Caparo Industries v. Dickman, [1990] 1 All E.R. 568
iv. Cooper
- Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537*
- Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129*
2. Foreseeability and Proximity
i. An introduction to the problem
- Home Office v. Dorset Yacht, [1970] A.C. 1004
- Hay v. Young, [1943] A.C. 92
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928), 162 N.E. 99
ii. Non-feasance versus misfeasance
- Stovin v. Wise, [1996] A.C. 923
iii. Duty to rescue
- Horsley v. MacLaren, [1969] 2 O.R. 137, rev’d [1970] 2 O.R. 487
- Videan v. British Transport Commission, [1963] 2 Q.B. 650
iv. Contractual relationships
- Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114
- Paxton v. Ramji (2008), 92 OR (3d) 401
v. Economic benefit
- Jordan House v. Menow, [1974] S.C.R. 239 *
- Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 118
- Donaldson v. John Doe, [2009] 5 W.W.R. 43
vi. Creation of risk
- Childs v. Desormeaux, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 643*
- Oke v. Weide Transport and Carra (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 53
vii. Special relationships
- Richards v. State of Victoria, [1969] V.R. 136
- Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [1999] 2 All E.R. 897
viii. Undertakings
- Zelenko v. Gimbel (1935), 287 N.Y.S. 134
- R. v. Nord-Deutsche, [1971] S.C.R. 849
- H.R. Moch v. Rensselaer Water (1928), 159 N.E. 896
ix. Occupiers
- Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2
- Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456
3. Policy grounds
- Ultramares v. Touche Niven (1931), 255 N.Y. 170
- Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753
4. Breach of Statutory Duty
i. The traditional position
- Gorris v. Scott (1874), L.R. 9 Ex. 125
- Kelly v. Henry Muhs (1904), 71 N.J.L. 358
ii. Modern position: no distinct tort
- R. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205*
- Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99
iii. Failure by plaintiff to comply with statute
- City of Vancouver v. Burchill, [1952] S.C.R. 620
iv. Statutory torts
- Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, Part XXIII
G. Standard of Care: Week 7
Reading: Osborne, 27-52; LKF (extracts from key cases), 171-189; 200-244; 552-560
1. Unreasonable Risk
i. Competing formulations
- Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850*
- United States v. Carroll Towing (1947), 159 F. 2d 169
- Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 835
ii. Probability
- Shilson v. Northern Ontario Light and Power (1919), 59 S.C.R. 443
- Gloster v. Toronto Electric Light (1906), 38 S.C.R. 27
iii. Cost
- Ware’s Taxi v. Gilliham, [1949] S.C.R. 637
- Law Estate v. Simice (1994), 21 C.C.L.T. (2d) 228
iv. Pre-existing condition
- Paris v. Stepney B.C., [1951] A.C. 367
- Elverson v. Doctors Hospital (1976), 65 D.L.R. (3d) 382
v. Emergencies
- Hogan v. McEwan (1975), 10 O.R. (2d) 551
- Priestman v. Colangelo and Smythson, [1959] S.C.R. 615
2. The Reasonable Person
i. Definitions
- Vaughan v. Menlove (1837), 132 E.R. 490
- Blythe v. Birmingham Water Works (1856), 156 E.R. 1047
- Arland and Arland v. Taylor, [1955] O.R. 131
ii. Compliance with or deviation from custom
- Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456*
- Warren v. Camrose (City), [1989] 3 W.W.R. 172
- Brown v. Rolls Royce, [1960] 1 All E.R. 557
iii. Particular types of reasonable person
- Young people and old people
- McHale v. Watson (1966), 39 A.L.J.R. 459
- Heisler v. Moke, [1972] O.R. 446
- Dellwo v. Pearson (1961), 107 N.W. 859
- McKee (Guardian ad litem of) v. McCoy (2001), 9 C.C.L.T. (3d) 294
- Mental and physical disability
- Buckley v. Smith Transport, [1946] O.R. 798
- Fiala v. Cechmanek (2001), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 680*
- Roberts v. Ramsbottom, [1980] 1 All E.R. 7
- Boomer v. Penn, [1966] 1 O.R. 119
- Stokes v. Carlson (1951), 240 S.W. 2d 132
- Specialists
- Doctors
- Wilson v. Swanson, [1956] S.C.R. 804
- Challand v. Bell (1959), 18 D.L.R. (2d) 150*
- ter Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674
- Vancouver General Hospital v. Fraser, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 36
- McCormick v. Marcotte, [1972] S.C.R. 18
- Duty to disclose
- Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880*
- White v. Turner (1981), 31 O.R. (2d) 773
- Ciarlariello v. Schachter, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119
- Arndt v. Smith, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539
- Doctors
3. Compliance with statute
- Grand Trunk Railway v. McKay (1903), 34 S.C.R. 81
- Lake Erie & Detroit River Railway v. Barclay (1900), 30 S.C.R. 360
- Ryan v. Victoria (City), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201*Poupart v. Lafortune, [1973] S.C.R. 175
4. Strict Liability for Defective Products
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (1944), 150 P. 2d 436
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), 53 Cal. 2d 57
- Restatement (Third) Products Liability, (1998), §§ 1, 2
ii. Duty to warn
- Hollis v. Dow Corning, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634*
- Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) v. Saint John Shipbuilding (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 385
iii. Inherently dangerous products
- Arendale v. Canada Bread Company, [1941] 2 D.L.R. 49
- Heimler v. Calvert Caterers (1975), 8 O.R. (2d) 1
- Ives v. Clare Brothers (1971), 15 D.L.R. (3d) 519
H. Causation and Proof of Negligence: Week 8
Reading: Osborne, 53-65; LKF (extracts from key cases), 161-169; 245-284
1. “But for” Causation
i. The basic test
- Kauffman v. Toronto Transit Commission, [1959] O.R. 197
- Wakelin v. The London & S.W. Railway (1886), 2 App. Cas. 41
- Marek v. Southern Enterprises (1936), 99 S.W. 2d 594
- East Texas Theatres v. Rutledge (1970), 453 S.W. 2d 466
- Clements v. Clements, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181*
ii. No recovery for loss of a chance
- Laferiere v. Lawson (1991), 6 C.C.L.T. (2d) 119
- Cottrelle v. Gerard (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 45
iii. How to deal with non-tortious causes
- Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458*
- Blackwater v. Plint, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 3
2. Proof
i. Res ipsa loquitur
- Byrne v. Boadle (1863), 159 E.R. 299
- Kirk v. McLaughlin Coal & Supplies, [1968] 1 O.R. 311
- Fontaine v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 424*
ii. Inferring negligence
- Leaman v. Rea, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 423
iii. Inferring causation: robust and pragmatic test
- Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311*
- Walker Estate v. York Finch General Hospital, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 647
- Resurfice v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333
3. Modified Standards in Limited Circumstances: Material contribution to risk
i. Impossibility
- Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830
- Lange v. Bennett, [1964] 1 O.R. 233
ii. Unfairness
- McGhee v. National Coal Board, [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008
- Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, [2002] 3 All E.R. 305
iii. Market share liability
- Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980), 26 Cal. 3d 588
4. Intervening events
i. Foreseeability test
- Bradford v. Kanellos, [1974] S.C.R. 409
ii. Second accident
- Wieland v. Cyril Lord Carpets, [1969] 3 All E.R. 1066
- McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All E.R. 1621
- Lucas v. Juneau (1955), 127 F. Supp. 730
iii. Medical error
- Mercer v. Gray, [1941] O.R. 127
- Price v. Milawski (1977), 82 D.L.R. (3d) 130
iv. Criminal and negligent acts
- Harris v. T.T.C. and Miller, [1967] S.C.R. 460
- Spagnalo v. Margesson’s Sports (1983), 41 O.R. (2d) 65
- Ford Motor v. Wagoner (1946), 183 Tenn. 392
v. Intermediaries
- Inspection
- Ives v. Clare Brothers, [1971] 1 O.R. 417
- Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.D.C., [1972] 1 Q.B. 373
- Good-Wear Treaders v. D. & B. Holdings (1979), 8 C.C.L.T. 87
- Learned intermediary
- Hollis v. Dow Corning, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634*
I. Damage: Week 9
Reading: Osborne, 65-66; 82-107; 174-206; LKF (extracts from key cases), 363-426; 463-507
1. Damage must be demonstrated
- Rothwell v. Chemical & Insulation Company, [2008] 1 A.C. 281
2. Remoteness
i. The directness rule
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Company, [1921] 3 K.B. 560
ii. Retreat from the directness rule
- The Wagon Mound (No. 1), [1961] A.C. 388*
iii. Return to the directness rule?
- Type of damage
- Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837
- Falkenham v. Zwicker (1978), 93 D.L.R. (3d) 289
- School Division of Assiniboine South, No. 3 v. Hoffer and Greater Winnipeg Gas (1970), 16 D.L.R. (3d) 703
- Jolley v. Sutton L.B.C., [2003] 3 All E.R. 409
- Tremain v. Pike, [1969] 3 All E.R. 1303
- Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing, [1964] 1 Q.B. 518
- Oke v. Weide Transport (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 53
- Possibility of damage
- The Wagon Mound (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 617*
- Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114
- The relationship between duty, proximity and remoteness: Palsgraf revisited
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928), 162 N.E. 99*
3. Particular categories of damage
i. Thin skulls
- Smith v. Leech Brain, [1962] 2 Q.B. 405*
- Malcolm v. Broadhurst, [1970] 3 All E.R. 508
- Corr v. I.B.C. Vehicles, [2008] 1 A.C. 884
- Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458
ii. Psychiatric harm
- Modified thin skull rule
- Vanek v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada (1999), 48 O.R. (3d) 228
- Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114*
- Need to have witnessed events
- Rhodes v. Canadian National Railway (1989), 75 D.L.R. (4th) 248
- McLoughlin v. O’Brien, [1983] 1 A.C. 410
- Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1991] 3 W.L.R. 1057
iii. Economic Loss
- Negligent misstatement
a. Duty of care
i. Foreseeability and proximity
- Hedley Byrne v. Heller, [1963] 2 All E.R. 575*
ii. Policy reasons
- Hercules Management v. Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165*
iii. Disclaimers
- B.G. Checo International v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12
- Misrepresentation
- Spinks v. Canada, [1996] 2 F.C. 563
- Negligence
- Queen v. Cognos, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87
- Detrimental reliance
- Ramdath v. George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2013 ONCA 468
- Negligent performance of a service
- B.D.C. v. Hofstrand Farms, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228
- Ross v. Caunters, [1980] Ch. 297
- Defective products
- Winnipeg Condominium v. Bird Construction, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85*
- Relational Economic Loss
- Canadian National Railway v. Norsk Pacific Steamship, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021*
- Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) v. Saint John Shipbuilding (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 385
4. What can the plaintiff recover?
- Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229
- Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-8
- Survival of Actions Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-27
J. Defences to Negligence: Week 10
Reading: Osborne, 107-118; LKF (extracts from key cases), 431-462
1. Contributory Fault
i. The traditional approach
- Butterfield v. Forrester (1809), 103 E.R. 926
- Davies v. Mann (1842), 152 E.R. 588
ii. The modern approach
- Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 1, ss. 1-7*
- Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) v. Saint John Shipbuilding, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210
- Wickberg v. Patterson (1997), 33 C.C.L.T. (2d) 231
iii. Determining fault
- Walford (Litigation guardian of) v. Jacuzzi Canada (2007), 87 OR (3d) 281
- Cork v. Kirby MacLean, [1952] 2 All E.R. 402
- Walls v. Mussens (1969), 11 D.L.R. (3d) 245
iv. The seatbelt rule
- Galaske v. O’Donnell, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670*
- Snushall v. Fulsang (2005), 258 D.L.R. (4th) 425
v. Joint and several liability
- Colonial Coach Lines v. Bennett, [1968] 1 O.R. 333
2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk
i. A defence to negligence
- Carnegie v. Trynchy (1966), 57 W.W.R. 305
- Hagerman v. City of Niagara Falls (1980), 29 O.R. (2d) 609
ii. High threshold for application
- Kelliher (Village) v. Smith, [1931] S.C.R. 672
- Hambley v. Shepley, [1967] 2 O.R. 217*
- Lagasse v. Rural Municipality of Ritchot (1973), 37 D.L.R. (3d) 392
iii. Express or implied agreement
- Benjamin v. Boutilier (1970), 17 D.L.R. (3d) 611
- Eid v. Dumas, [1969] S.C.R. 668
- Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186
iv. Waiver clauses
- Dyck v. Manitoba Snowmobile Association, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 589
v. Sports
- Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement (1929), 250 N.Y. 479
- Agar v. Canning (1965), 54 W.W.R. 302
- Payne v. Maple Leaf Gardens, [1949] 1 D.L.R. 369
3. Illegality/Ex Turpi Causa
i. Barring recovery on basis of immoral or illegal conduct
- Holman v Johnson(1775), 98 E.R. 1120
- Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159*
- British Columbia v. Zastowny, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 27*
- Moore Stephens v. Stone Rolls, [2009] 1 AC 1391
ii. Relationship between ex turpi causa and modern apportionment legislation
- Lewis v. Sayers, [1970] 3 O.R. 591
4. Public Authorities
K. Liability of Public Authorities: Week 11
Reading: Osborne, 213-231; LKF (extracts from key cases), 509-528
1. Negligence
i. Foreseeability and Proximity
- Anns v. Merton L.B.C., [1978] A.C. 728
- Kamloops (City) v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2
- Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562
- Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17
- Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129*
- Fullowka v. Pinkerton’s of Canada, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 132*
- R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45*
- Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261
ii. The distinction between policy and operations
- United States v. Gaubert (1991), 499 U.S. 315
- Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228
- Brown v. British Columbia, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420
- R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45*
- Barrett v. Enfield L.B.C, [2001] 2 A.C. 550
iii. Residual policy considerations
- Fullowka v. Pinkerton’s of Canada, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 132*
- Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. British Columbia, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83
- Holland v. Saskatchewan, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551
iv. Invalidity
- Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430
- Home Office v. Dorset Yacht, [1970] A.C. 1004
- Canada (Attorney General) v. Telezone, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
i. Public officer
- Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden (2006), 79 OR (3d) 401
ii. Unlawful conduct in the exercise of a public function
- Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121
iii. Malice or knowledge
- Three Rivers D.C. v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2003] 2 A.C. 1
- Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263
- Ontario Racing Commission v. O’Dwyer (2008), 293 D.L.R. (4th) 559
iv. Causing a legally recognized injury
- Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 198 D.L.R. (4th) 577
3. Malicious Prosecution
i. Institution of criminal proceedings
- Canada (R.C.M.P.) v. Dagenais, 2007 SKCA 31
- Crawford Adjusters v. Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman), [2013] UKPC 17
ii. Proceedings concluded favourably to plaintiff
- Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170
iii. Absence of reasonable and probable cause
- Proulx v. Québec, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9
iv. Improper purpose, not honest belief in guilt
- Mizaga v. Kvello Estate, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339
- Griffin v. City of Summerside (2008), 281 Nfld & PEIR 197
4. Immunities
i. Legislative activity
- Welbridge Holdings v. Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957
ii. Judicial and quasi-judicial decisions
- Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170
- Dechant v. Stevens (2001), 89 Alta L.R. (3d) 246
iii. Armed conflict
- Shaw Shavill & Albion v. Commonwealth (1940), 66 C.L.R. 344
5. Extensions and Modifications of Liability
L. Vicarious Liability and Statutory Schemes: Week 12
Reading: Osborne, 361-375; LKF (extracts from key cases), 560-574; 775-785
1. Vicarious Liability
i. Respondeat superior
- Commission of a tort
- Lister v. Romford Ice & Cold Storage, [1957] 1 All E.R. 125
- Douglas v. Kinger (Litigation guardian of) (2008), 166 A.C.W.S. (3d) 793
- Relationship of control
- 671122 Ontario v. Sagaz Industries Canada, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983*
- K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403
- Scope of employment
- Lloyd v. Grace, Smith, [1912] A.C. 716
- Mattis v. Pollock, [2004] 4 All E.R. 85
- Bazley v. Currie, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534*
- Jacobi v. Griffiths, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570*
- G. (E.D.) v. Hammer, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 459
- Joint vicarious liability
- Blackwater v. Plint, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 3
ii. Vicarious liability and public authorities
- Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 27, s. 5
iii. Non-delegable duties
- Personal responsibility to secure safety
- Wilsons v. Clyde Coal, [1938] A.C. 57
- Lewis (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1145
- K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403
- Intrinsically dangerous work
- Scarmar Constructions v. Geddes Contracting (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 328
iv. Direct liability
- Mattis v. Pollock, [2004] 4 All E.R. 85
- K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403
v. Partners and agents
- Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5, ss. 6 and 11
- Strother v. 3464920 Canada, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177
vi. Statutory extensions of vicarious liability
- Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust, [2007] 1 A.C. 224
- Allen v. Aspen Group Resources, 2012 ONSC 3498
_____________________________________________________________________
MATERIAL AFTER THIS POINT WAS NOT COVERED
- Workers’ Compensation
- Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15
- Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board v. Penney (1980), 38 N.S.R. (2d) 623
- Ferneyhough v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, 189 N.S.R. (2d) 76
- Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), 2012 ABQB 733
- Rabin, “Reflections on Tort and the Administrative State” (2012), 61 De Paul L.R. 239
- Human Rights Tribunals
- Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, s. 37
- Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2013 ABCA 238
- Criminal Injuries Compensation
- Jones (by Caldwell) v. Upper Tribunal, [2013] UKSC 19
- No-fault automobile insurance
6. Conclusion
M. Constitutional Issues: Week 13
Reading: LKF (extracts from key cases), 653-659
1. Scope of Tort
i. Need for balance
- New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254
- Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
ii. Failure to protect constitutionally guaranteed interests
- Hanrahan v. Merck Sharpe and Dohme (Ireland), [1988] ILRM 629
- Osman v. United Kingdom (1998), 29 E.H.R.R. 245
2. Human Rights and Tort
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971), 403 U.S. 388
- Pearson v. Callahan (2009), 555 U.S. 223
- Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28
3. Federalism and Tort
i. Overlapping functions
- Cipollone v. Liggett (1992), 505 U.S. 504
ii. Identifying conflicts
- Medtronic v. Lohr (1996), 518 U.S. 470
- Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett (2013), 570 U.S. ______
iii. Could it happen in Canada?
- Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437
- Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44
This content has been updated on August 23, 2014 at 12:19.