• Print
  • Torts accounts for 162 out of 654 casebriefs.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Austin v Rescon Construction Ltd (1984), 57 DLR (4th) 591 (BC CA)

Landowner may deny entry for any reason they choose and has no obligation to accommodate a contractor or anyone else wishing to enter.

B.D.C. Ltd. v. Hofstrand Farms Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228

If duty of care was extended to the respondent, based on idea that this respondent should be within the reasonable contemplation of the appellant, there would be no logical/practical limitations.

Added reliance component. Uses Hedley Bryne - Finds that there was no reliance of respondent on the appellant based on the representations or undertaking of the appellant.

Duty of Care being applied would lead to a class of plaintiffs being created and leading to a spectra of indeterminate liability. This would be unacceptable.

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.

Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534

The test for vicarious liability for an employee’s sexual abuse of a client should focus on whether the employer’s enterprise and empowerment of the employee materially increased the risk of the sexual assault and hence the harm.