Canada: Looking For Reform In All The Wrong Places

Last Updated: May 8 2015
Article by Richard C. Halpern

I have read the article "Disjointed – A Look at Joint and Several Liability" published in the Q2-2014 MSA Quarterly Outlook Report. The author is the "Insurance Bureau of Canada", but no single author takes "credit" for the article. The article continues on what I see as a repeating theme from the insurance industry to push ill-considered reforms aimed at issues primarily of concern to the insurance industry, without due regard to the wider public interest or to the longer term consequences. With this article, the IBC continues to look for reform in all the wrong places.

With due respect to the IBC, the article fails to articulate a sustainable principle for its proposed reforms; shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule and its rationale; lacks data in support of its position; and, neglects important policy issues that demand that the rule be maintained.

I begin by taking issue with the intentionally provocative use of the phrase "1% rule". This represents a deliberate attempt to distract any sensible consideration of the rule, a tactic commonly used by groups seeking to satisfy their self-centered interests. There are no examples of parties who have paid 100% of a judgment after only 1% liability has been attributed to them.

More importantly, referring to joint and several liability as the 1% rule betrays an ignorance of the principles of concurrent liability underlying the rule. One needs to recognize that severally liable wrongdoers are the "but-for" causes of the entirety of the injured person's loss, even though they may share liability with another wrongdoer.

Supporters of reform to the joint and several liability rules would argue that a "deep pockets" potential defendant can turn an economically worthless case into a viable case worth pursuing. This is particularly so because the deep pockets party will end up paying more than their proportionate share of liability. While superficially this might seem to some advocates of reform as inappropriate or unfair, a better understanding of the rule should help these advocates appreciate that the rule is indeed fair and equitable, based on a foundation of very sound principles. To fairly consider the issues, one needs to look at the matter in as objective a fashion as possible, without pushing for the interests of a particular constituency.

The law of joint and several liability has been carefully reviewed by a number of Law Commissions in Canada and Internationally in recent years. These detailed analyses have often occurred in response to particular interest groups seeking to reform the law to alter the application of the legal rules in favour of the interested group. After careful analysis by these impartial Commissions, calls for reform to the law of joint and several liability have been largely rejected. Most recently (2013), the Manitoba Law Reform Commission provided a thorough analysis of the history and principles underlying the current law of joint and several liability and concluded that there was no compelling reason for reform.

As stated above, the misleading term "1% rule" betrays fundamental ignorance of the applicable principles. Joint and several liability is concerned with harm caused by more thanone wrongdoer. The long-standing common law rule is that where a single injury to the plaintiff is caused by more than one wrongdoer the injury is "indivisible". The acts of the multiple wrongdoers in this sense are concurrent in that all the wrongful acts, taken together, "caused" the injury. At common law, where the totality of the harm was caused by multiple defendants, the plaintiff could recover all of the loss from any one of the defendants. This is because the wrongful acts of each of the defendants caused the entire injury.

In the case of two wrongdoers, "together" they have caused a single loss to the plaintiff. That means that the plaintiff has established that "but for" the wrongful act of each, the injury would not have occurred. The notion of concurrent liability means that each of the wrongdoers was the cause of the entire injury. This is the fundamental concept that is vital to a complete understanding of the principles that support the current law of joint and several liability and that argue against any change to the law.

The fact that liability is "concurrent" means that it is utterly misleading to characterize the law of joint and several liability as the "1% rule". Calling it the 1% rule is an inappropriate attempt to connote some notion of unfairness. It does not matter what percentage of liability is attributed to a concurrent wrongdoer, but only that the wrongful act of that wrongdoer actually caused the entirety of the injury. On this basis it can be seen that fairness demands that any one concurrent wrongdoer ought to be responsible to ensure that the injury party is fully compensated. That wrongdoer is responsible for the entirety of the loss. It would be fundamentally unfair to require the innocent injured party to bear some of the loss for one impecunious defendant, when there is another defendant who actually caused the loss. Each defendant was the cause of the whole injury.

The notion asserted in the IBC article that joint and several liability encourages frivolous law suits or drives up assessments is entirely without foundation. If one appreciates that wrongdoers are concurrently liable for the entirety of the loss and that payment does not have to be made except where there is liability, there is nothing frivolous about the concept. Where a party to a lawsuit contributes to a settlement of the case it is inevitably an acknowledgment of the risk of being found liable.

The IBC article also makes reference to rising liability premiums, but there is not a shred of support for the proposition that the application of joint and several liability has contributed to that development in any material way. In fact the article inappropriately conflates 'liability generally' with 'joint and several liability'. In referencing the 25% of payments due to the application of joint and several liability the article has failed to set out the amounts alleged to be over and above the several liability of the municipality. In any event, concurrent liability makes that largely irrelevant.

The article uses the case of Deering v. Scucog (2010) ONSC 5502 as an illustration of the allegedly adverse consequences of the joint and several principles. It is, in reality, an illustration of how well joint and several liability works. The article fails to point out the following:

  1. This was not a 1% case, in fact the municipalities were held to be 60% responsible;
  2. This accident would not have happened at all if the municipalities had met the standard of care;
  3. In very comprehensive reasons, Mr. Justice Howden found the condition of the roadway where the collision occurred "an accident waiting to happen";
  4. Even witnesses called by the municipalities in defence of the case conceded that the circumstances encountered by the driver would have been "not just a startling experience, but also a terrifying one for an ordinary driver";
  5. That the solution to the danger involved inexpensive alternatives;
  6. That the road condition provided an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists using ordinary care; and
  7. That the municipalities knew or reasonably should have known of the danger for a whole host of reasons.

Further, the comments attributed to Frank Cowan Company about the Deering case are absurd. For example Cowan is quoted as saying "if a reasonable assessment of 25% liability on the municipalities had been made in a non-joint and several liability scenario, the cost would have been $6 million...". The fact is that the judge attributed 60% liability to the municipalities which, by our measure of justice, is in fact the only "reasonable assessment" of liability. To randomly suggest a different liability split is simply a non sequitur and makes absolutely no sense. If the municipalities were not negligent they would not have had to pay, but that was simply not the finding made by the court.

The assertion that municipalities, in particular, are in need of relief from joint and several liability because it is "inequitable" is entirely unfounded on any principled, or even economic, basis. It is a bald statement not based on any reliable foundation or data. On the contrary, it is inequitable to relieve a wrongdoer from accountability for their negligence when the injury would never have occurred but for their wrongdoing. Likewise, the argument for shifting liability costs away from liable parties defies logic. That proposal results in shifting liability to the injured party. As between a wrongdoer and the innocent party, simple common sense tells us that the burden of loss must shift to a wrongdoer. That is a fundamental principle of our system of compensation.

Finally, just as reform to joint and several liability is not appropriate for auditors, having been rejected by the Ontario Law Commission, and not appropriate for municipalities, as it is no longer part of the plans of the government, there ought to be no change to the law as it affects any other wrongdoer. Joint and several liability is based on sound principles of law and is good public policy and there is no reliable data or principle that would suggest otherwise. Looking for reform? -- Start looking in the right places.


1 Really beginning with the mess that is auto insurance in this province starting in 1990.

2 Manitoba Law Reform Commission 2013; Ontario Law Commission 2011; Ontario Law Reform Commission 1988; Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan 1998; the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce 1998; Civil Liability Review by the Attorney General of British Columbia 2002; Victorian (Australia) Attorney General's Law Reform Advisory Council 1998; New Zealand Law Commission 1998; New South Wales Law Reform Commission 1999; Law Commission (UK) 1996.

3 Manitoba Law Reform Commission, Contributory Fault: The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act, Report #128, September 2013.

4 MLRC page 14.

5 MLRC p. 2.

6 At common law, liability in solidum.

7 See paragraph 251 of the reasons of Justice Howden.

8 See paragraph 253.

9 See paragraph 256.

10 See paragraph 263.

11See paragraph 278.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions