63 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

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

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.

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.

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.

Brunswick Construction Ltd v Nowlan (1974) 21 BLR 27, 49 DLR (3d) 93

Where there are concurrent torts, both contributing to the same damage (whether or not the damage would have occurred in the absence of either cause), either party causing or contributing to the damage is liable for whole damage to the plaintiff

Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles, [1998] ALR 157

Equity will not automatically impose a constructive trust.
** Equity will only be invoked if there is a need for a just remedy -- might be imposed to prevent the fiduciary from retaining an unconscionable benefit.

Canadian Aero v O'Malley, [1974] SCR 592

A fiduciary (director or officer of the corporation) cannot use opportunities acquired from their position as a fiduciary to compete with the corporation.

This is an exception to the general rule that Directors and Officers can leave a corporation and subsequently do competing business (Metropolitan Commercial Carpet Centre v Donovan)

Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Vancouver (City), [2006] 1 SCR 227, 2006 SCC 5

A de facto expropriation requires both an acquisition of a beneficial
interest in a property and removal of all reasonable uses of the property.
** A prohibition on all economic activity does not constitute de facto expropriation.

Chappell v United States (2000), 119 F Supp 2d 1013, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16599

In cases of ownerless property, first finder of the property gets rights.

Charrier v Bell (1986), 496 So.2d 601 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit)

Objects interred with the dead are not abandoned; such objects are intended to remain in the ground.

Cook v Lewis, [1951] SCR 830

If the plaintiff can prove that the two defendants were negligent (one had to have caused his loss) and it is impossible to prove which one, then the burden of proving causation shifts to the defendants.