37 out of 654 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

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.

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39, [2003] 2 SCR 40

Due process protections do not apply to the legislative process.

Bettel v Yim (1978), 20 OR (2d) 617 (Co Ct)

A person is responsible for all damage, foreseeable or not, that results from their battery.

Browne v Dunn (1893), 6 R 67 (HL)

If you intend to challenge a witness on specific points of evidence, you must first confront that witness on those points during cross-examination, so the witness has a chance to answer your challenge and provide additional information.

Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) C.P.D. 344

The mailbox rule does not apply to revocation; revocation sent by post does not take effect until received by offeree. An offer cannot be revoked after it has been accepted.

Canadian Dyers Association Ltd. v Burton (1920), 47 OLR 259 (HL)

A mere statement of price does not constitute an offer to sell; it is no more than an invitation to treat. However, courts will consider the language used and context, in addition to subsequent actions of both parties when determining whether an offer was made.

Caparo v Dickman, [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)

Recognition of a duty of care now turns on 3-part test:
** 1. The plaintiff’s loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s conduct;
** 2. There was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties;
** 3. It is “fair, just, and reasonable” for the court to impose a duty of care in light of the applicable policy considerations.

Cooper v Hobart (2001), 206 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC)

A government actor who may reasonably foresee that losses to individuals could result if careless in carrying out her or his duties under legislation, does not have a prima facie duty of care to those individuals if the duty is not specified in the legislation.

This case also clarifies the Anns Test.

Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 1186

Sundance must accept the responsibility, as the promoter of a dangerous sport, for taking all reasonable steps from allowing an intoxicated person from participating.

Ford v Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 SCR 712

Commercial advertising constitutes expression under section. 2(b).

Purpose of 2(b) of the Charter (the underlying principles):
** 1. Seeking truth as an inherently good activity;
** 2. Participation in social and political decision making is to be fostered and encouraged;
** 3. The diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated, in an essentially tolerant environment, not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning but also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed.

Gilbert v Stone (1648), 82 ER 539 (KB)

Duress is an irrelevant motive in intentional torts. It is therefore not a defence to trespass, particularly if allowing the defence would deny relief to the plaintiff.

Hodgkinson v Martin, [1929] 1 DLR 367

Sincere mistake is no excuse; but it may reduce damages to nominal damages.

Hogan v. Newfoundland (Attorney General), 2000 NFCA 12

An unwritten constitutional principle cannot defeat a written constitutional principle.

Horsley v MacLaren (The Ogopogo), [1972] SCR 441 (also Matthews v Maclaren)

1. Assuming the duty: Whether there is a duty or not, the moment you start acting you are subject to a duty that you cannot be negligent in fulfilling that duty.

2. Causation: Negligence has to cause the injury to the plaintiff.

3. Duty to rescuers: The general rule is that if a person by his fault creates a situation of peril, he must answer for it to any person who attempts to rescue the person who is in danger. However, this is subject to whether the person's actions are faulty enough to induce the other party to risk his life.

Kamloops (City) v Nielsen (1984), 10 DLR (4th) 641 (SCC)

In determining whether a duty of care exists:
** 1. Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties ... so that in the reasonable contemplation of the defendant, carelessness on its part might cause damage to the plaintiff?
** 2. If so, are there any considerations which out to negative or limit:
*** A) the scope of the duty; and
*** B) the class of persons to whom it is owed; or
*** C) the damages to which a breach of it may give rise