• Print

Style of causeRatio

340909 Ontario Ltd v Huron Steel Products Ltd (1990), 73 OR (2d) 641 (HCJ)

What constitutes unreasonable interference:
** 1. The severity of the interference, having regard to its nature and duration and effect;
** 2. The character of the locale;
** 3. The utility of the defendant’s conduct;
** 4. The sensitivity of the use interfered with.

373409 Alberta Ltd (Receiver of) v Bank of Montreal, 2002 SCC 81

In the context of money or negotiable instruments, a party acting with proper authorization from the rightful owner is not liable in conversion.

Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 SCR 609

Religious minorities not already recognized by s.93 are not entitled to public funding. These minorities cannot use the Charter to defeat the express provisions of s.93 of the Constitution.

Agar v Canning (1965), 54 WWR 302 (Man QB)

Consent does not give blanket immunity from liability. Conduct exceeding consent renders a defendant liable for injuries that result.

Aitken v Gardiner (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 119 (ON SC)

The plaintiff may recover value of chattel at time of conversion (general rule) and potentially also consequential losses caused by the conversion (to compensate the plaintiff if the thing increased in value between the time it was taken and the time of the trial).

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

If a law is fundamentally supposed to apply to everyone (writ large), an accommodation of religious beliefs (individual tailoring) is NOT appropriate under s.1 – the legislation must do this (greater deference due to complexity of law). Effects on the freedom of religion with writ large laws will be considered under final balancing step of s.1.

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 AC 310

A person suffering nervous shock must have reasonable proximity to the event that caused the shock in order to claim for damages.

Aluminum Co. of America v Essex Group, Inc., 499F. Supp. 53, 72 (W.D. Pa. 1980)

Doctrine of frustration only applies when frustrating event is substantial, it must be so severe that it cannot be fairly regarded as being party of the risk, which had been assumed by the parties
**Minor changes are not sufficient

A mere change in degree of difficulty or expense due to such causes as increased wages, prices of raw materials, or costs of construction, unless well beyond the normal range, does not amount to impracticability since it is the sort of risk a fixed-price contract is intended to cover

Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed, [1971] 3 All E.R. 690

Can sue for lost profits (expectation) or expenditure (reliance) but not both. Can recover wasted expenditure when flow from beach.
**Wasted expenditure before the breach can also be recovered when the defendant reasonably contemplated that the breach would result in the loss

Anns v Merton London Borough Council, [1978] AC 728 (HL)

Not a specific test for determining whether to recognize a duty of care; rather it is an approach for analyzing existing categories and recognizing new categories of negligence:
** 1. Whether between the defendant and the plaintiff there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises
** 2. If yes to the first question, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which act to negative (or to reduce or limit) the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

Arland v Taylor, [1955] OR 131 (CA)

The standard of care use to judge conduct is based on what the conduct of a reasonable person would be.

Asamera Oil Corporation v. Sea Oil & General Corporation, [1979] 1 SCR 633

In order to seek specific performance as opposed to damages, must have a legitimate and substantial interest (can justify one’s inaction and might recover losses), and onus is on the plaintiff to prove legitimate interest.
**If not legitimate and substantial must claim damages and have duty to mitigate

Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill, [1972] Ac 441

For sale by description, it is only a question of whether the goods as described were delivered. Description does not necessarily relate to quality

Buyer need only partially rely on the sellers skill or judgement. The fitness-for-purpose rule is subject to the idiosyncratic exception.
**The Idiosyncratic Exception: If the seller could show that the mink possessed an idiosyncrasy which made the food unsuitable but it would suitable for other animals or birds, then there would be no liability.

Attorney General for Ontario v Attorney General for the Dominion, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A.C. 348 (J.C.P.C.)

If a subject matter is broadly defined, it can have provincial and federal aspects (double aspect doctrine); if this happens, paramountcy is an issue

Attorney-General (Ontario) v Orange Productions Ltd (1971), 21 DLR (3d) 257 (HC)

A public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take it on – instead, taking action becomes the responsibility of the community at large.