• Print

Style of causeRatio

1465778 Ontario Inc. v 1122077 Ontario Ltd., [2006] OJ No 4248 (ONCA)

Pro bono counsel can get costs awarded in their favour and have costs awarded against them

Agha (Mustapha) v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 564

Case does not raise issue worthy of appeal.

Alberta Government Telephones v Canada (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 2 SCR 225

To determine whether AGT is inter-provincial, ask whether it engages in regular and continuous service [Winner]

Arndt v Smith, [1997] 2 SCR 539

Determining causation in cases of medical risk and a duty to inform requires an application of the modified objective test
** Courts should consider what the reasonable patient in the plaintiff’s circumstances would have done if faced with the same situation

Assiniboine South School Division, No 3 v Hoffer & Greater Winnipeg Gas Co, [1970] 16 DLR (3d) 703; affd [1971] 4 WWR 746, affd [1973] 6 WWR 765

The test of foreseeability of damage is a question of what is possible rather than what is probable.

Athey v Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458

If the defendant’s negligence materially contributes to the plaintiff’s single indivisible injury, the defendant is liable and the plaintiff can recover 100% of the damages

Barlow v Citadel General Assurance Company, 2008 CanLII 3215 (ON SC)

Premiums are no longer available for lawyers who take cases on contingency basis (Walker v Ritchie).
Take into account unnecessary actions by successful party when calculating costs

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1968] 1 All ER 1068

The causal relation between the alleged negligence (or actual careless conduct) and the injury must be made out by the evidence and consistent with the context.

Beckman v Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53

Source of the duty to consult is external the treaty – duty to consult informs the ongoing relationship set out in the treaty
**The duty to consult is imposed as a matter of law, irrespective of the parties’ “agreement”

Duty to consult it not excluded by a treaty – this is for established and not established rights

Bell Canada v Quebec, [1988] 1 SCR 749

The rule is that valid provincial laws of general application can apply to a federal work or undertaking, unless the application of these laws would impair the vital or essential elements of these undertakings.

Management is an essential vital part of a fed undertaking– so feds have jurisdiction over labour relations of fed undertakings, so prov labour relations cannot apply bc it would affect/impair fed essential element.
**Once determined something is a fed undertaking – feds control labour relations, this affects management, which is a vital element

BM v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2004 BCCA 402

But for test for causation is the primary test; material contribution, inference or risk tests are applied only in cases of where proof of causation is precluded by the limits of scientific knowledge or where the defendant controls all possible physical agents of harm.

Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v The King, ( 1916) 1 AC 566

What the words (w/ prov object) do is preclude the grant of powers and rights in respect of objects outside the prov, while leaving untouched the ability of the corp to accept such rights if granted by another prov

Boucher v Kennedy, [1999] OJ No 3482 (ON CA)

All uses of an opportunity outside the corporation are not necessarily a breach of fiduciary duty. If the opportunity is unconnected with the business of the corporation, the senior employee does not have to offer it to the corporation.

Bradford v Kanellos, [1974] SCR 409

If a consequence is not within the scope of what is reasonably foreseeable, then there can be no liability

Braglin v Braglin, 2002 ABQB 816

A determination of whether occupation rent is payable is context-specific and discretionary. In this case, no occupation rent required. This is a discretionary remedy: therefore occupation rent may apply in other situations.