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
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.