• Print
  • Torts accounts for 182 out of 726 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

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.

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.

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.