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
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.
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
Heightened Standard of Care in the Presence of Children
not Limited to Schools, Playground and Suburban
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.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).