• Print
  • Torts accounts for 238 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

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.

Bamford v Turnley, (1862), 122 ER 27 (Exch)

A cost for the public benefit should not be inflicted on someone without compensation.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 2 All ER 1068 QBD

When evidence shows it would not have likely prevented the death.

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

Yes, the basis of vicarious liability is to hold the employer responsible for the risks their activities created and/or materially enhanced in the community, whether or not they desired it. This is necessary to ensure that there is fair compensation for the victim and adequate deterrence.
-No exception for non-profits.

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.

Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd, [1978] 1 QB 479

The rights of landowners in the airspace above their land is restricted to such a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it – above that height he has not greater rights then the general public.

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.

BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12

Concurrency rule: If the tort duty is not contradicted by the contract, it remains intact and may be sued upon.

Bird v Holbrook (1828), 4 Bing 628, 130 ER 911

Force is not justified when used for an improper purpose. (Use of force, without warning or threat of force, is not justified to prevent trespass.)

Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742

Partial obstruction, unaccompanied by force or threat of force, does not constitute false imprisonment.

Black v Canada 2000 CA

It is plain and obvious the Prime Minister’s advice about honours is his prerogative beyond the review of the Courts, because it does not touch upon a right or legitimate expectation.

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.

Board of Governors of the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181

Discrimination is not a tort at common law.

Boehringer v. Montalto (1931), 254 NY Supp 276

Landowner's title to the subsoil extends only to the depth which he or she can reasonably use.