and
Heather Gray 
The Supreme Court takes another stab at the application of the "material contribution" test: Clements v. Clements and the law of proof of causation in negligence
By: Julia Vizzaccaro and Belinda Bain
Introduction
When seeking to recover damages in connection with harm resulting from another's negligence, an injured party must establish on a balance of probabilities that the tortfeasor caused the injury in question. The requirement that an injured party establish a causal connection between the negligent act and the resulting harm has been recognized to anchor the law of negligence to one of its underlying purposes, that of corrective justice.
The long standing test applied by the Canadian Courts to the proof of causation is the "but for" test. Applied in both single cause as well as multi-cause injuries, the test requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that "but for" the defendant's negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in the past that in certain exceptional circumstances, a Court may apply the "material contribution" test in place of the "but for" test. The "material contribution" test allows an injured party to avoid the need to prove "but for" causation and only requires proof that the negligent action materially contributed to the risk of harm.
In the case of Clements v. Clements 2012 SCC 32 ("Clements"), the Supreme Court on the one hand narrowed the application of the "material contribution" test, but in obiter comments, suggested that the test's application may be expanded in the future.
Link to Full article - The Supreme Court takes another stab at the application of the "material contribution" test: Clements v. Clements and the law of proof of causation in negligence
Vicarious Director Liability?
By: Barry Stork
Summary:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its summary judgment motion decision in Allen v. Aspen Group Resources Corporation. This decision has opened the door to legal partnerships being found vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in his or her capacity as an outside director or officer.
Link to Full article - Vicarious Director Liability?
Heightened Standard of Care in the Presence of Children not Limited to Schools, Playground and Suburban Neighbourhoods
By: Sameer Nurmohamed> and Heather Gray
In Annapolis County District School Board v Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a heightened standard of care applies to drivers who operate their vehicles where children are likely to be present.
Link to Full article - Heightened Standard of Care in the Presence of Children not Limited to Schools, Playground and Suburban Neighbourhoods
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
