CANADIAN TORT LAW The Honourable Allen M. Linden Q.C., B.A., LL.B., LL.M., J.S.D. Federal Court of Canada (retired) Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa and Pepperdine University and Bruce Feldthusen B.A., LL.B., LL.M., SJ.D. Dean, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Common Law Section Ninth Edition K&fiSNekis
TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication About the Authors Preface Table of Cases v vii ix xxvii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: THE FUNCTIONS OF TORT LAW 1 A. COMPENSATION 4 B. DETERRENCE 6 1. Insurance Company Influence 10 2. Partnership with Criminal Law 11 C. EDUCATION 13 D. PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTION 16 E. MARKET DETERRENCE 19 F. OMBUDSMAN 22 1. Publicity 26 2. Institutional Limitations 28 G. THE FUTURE OF TORT LAW 30 CHAPTER 2. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON 33 A. INTENTION 33 1. Constructive Intention 34 2. Transferred Intent 34 3. Intention, Volition and Motive 35 4. Mistake 37 5. Youth 38 6. Mental Illness 40 B. BATTERY 42 C. ASSAULT 46 1. Tort, Crime, and Compensation for Victims of Crime 49 D. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 50 1. Malicious Prosecution 54 E. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL SUFFERING 55 F. PRIVACY 59 G. DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 64 H. DAMAGES: COMPENSATORY, AGGRAVATED AND PUNITIVE 67 CHAPTER 3. DEFENCES TO THE INTENTIONAL TORTS 75 A. CONSENT 75
xiv Table of Contents 1. Reality of Consent 80 (a) Fraud 80 (b) Duress 81 (c) Undue Influence 81 (d) Youth 82 (e) Criminal Behaviour 83 2. Consent in the Medical Context 84 (a) Withdrawal of Consent 86 (b) Emergencies 87 (c) Children 88 (d) Scope of Consent 89 (e) Consent, "Informed Consent" and the Duty of Disclosure 90 B. SELF-DEFENCE 92 1. Provocation 95 C. DEFENCE OF THIRD PERSONS 97 D. DEFENCE OF PROPERTY 98 E. NECESSITY 99 F. LEGAL AUTHORITY 101 G. CONTRIBUTORY FAULT AND APPORTIONMENT 109 CHAPTER 4. NEGLIGENCE: THE ELEMENTS: DAMAGE AND CAUSATION 113 A. ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE... 114 B. DAMAGE 116 1. Limitation Periods 117 2. Combined Action for Negligent Conduct Necessary 119 C. CAUSATION 120 1. Inferring Causation 123 2. Multiple Causes 126 3. Two Negligent Defendants but Only One Cause of Accident: Onus on Defendants 129 CHAPTER5. NEGLIGENCE: THE STANDARD OF CARE 133 A. UNREASONABLE RISK 134 1. Probability 135 2. Loss 138 3. Object 138 (a) Police Activity Causing Injury to Others 139 (b) Other Situations 141 4. Cost 143 B. THE REASONABLE PERSON 144 C. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REASONABLE PERSON 148 1. Intelligence and Knowledge 148
Table of Contents xv 2. Control of Children 149 3. The Need to Expand Knowledge by Consulting 151 4. Physical Disability 152 5. Superior Knowledge 153 D. YOUTH 154 1. Children of Tender Age 155 2. Children Beyond Tender Age 156 (a) The Test Now Used 157 (b) An Alternative Test 158 (c) Applications of the Standard 158 3. Adult Activity 159 E. MENTAL ILLNESS 161 F. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 164 1. Lawyers 166 (a) Liability Imposed 169 (b) No Liability Imposed 170 (c) Immunity of English Advocates Rejected 171 2. Doctors 174 (a) Specialists 175 (b) Novices and Interns 177 (c) Locality Rule 178 (d) The Need to Seek Specialist's Advice 179 (e) Reliance on Other Personnel 180 (f) Negligence Found. 181 (g) Errors of Judgment 183 (h) Duty of Disclosure 184 (i) Reasonable Patient Standard 186 (ii) Material Risks and Unusual or Special Risks 188 (Hi) Modified Objective Test of Causation 191 (iv) Summary of Reibl 194 (i) Cost Containment Measures 195 (f) Conclusion About Doctors' Liability 197 G. AGGRAVATED NEGLIGENCE 198 CHAPTER 6. CUSTOM 201 A. POLICY 202 B. COMPLIANCE WITH CUSTOM AS REASONABLE CARE 205 1. Medical Custom 208 C. COMPLIANCE WITH CUSTOM AS NEGLIGENCE 211 D. DEVIATION FROM CUSTOM 217 E. PROOF OF CUSTOM 220 F. CAUSATION 223
xvi Table of Contents CHAPTER 7. STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AND THE STANDARD OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE 225 A. BACKGROUND 226 B. CANADA V. SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL 228 1. The Aftermath 231 C. Analysis of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool 233 D. Why Civil Courts Rely on Penal Statutes 236 1. Respect for the Legislature 236 2. Expertise 237 3. Strengthening Criminal Law 237 4. Administrative Efficiency: Particularizing the Standard of Care 238 5. Control of the Jury 239 6. Stricter Liability 240 7. Opposing Policy Considerations 241 E. THE LIMITATIONS 241 1. Need for Statutory Breach 242 (a) Compliance with Legislation 243 2. Offending Conduct Must Cause Loss 245 3. Accident Must Be of a Type Statute Sought to Prevent 246 4. Plaintiff Must Be Among Group Statute Aims to Protect 249 F. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 250 1. Are Other Procedural Effects Possible? 250 2. When Will a Violation Be Excused? 251 CHAPTER 8. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE 253 A. THE BURDEN OF PROOF GENERALLY 253 B. INFERRING NEGLIGENCE: THE "EXPIRED" MAXIM OF RESIPSA LOQUITUR 254 C. WHEN NEGLIGENCE MAY BE INFERRED 256 1. Accidents Giving Rise to an Inference of Negligence 256 (a) Falling Objects 256 (b) Explosions 257 (c) Traffic and Ground Transportation 258 (d) Air Crashes 259 (e) Fires 260 (f) Defective Products 261 (g) Medical Cases 262 (h) Other Situations 263 (i) Inference Not Drawn 263 (j) Inference of Gross Negligence 263 (k) Inference of Contributory Negligence 264 2. Negligence Attributed to Defendant 264
Table of Contents xvii (a) Medical Situations 265 (b) Defendant Not Responsible 265 (c) Confusion Over Word "Control" 266 D. PROCEDURAL EFFECT 267 1. Onus Shift in Specific Situations 267 (a) Food Products 268 (b) Fires and Air Crashes 269 (c) Dangerous Things and Latent Defects 269 E. PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS TO THE NEED TO ISOLATE THE DEFENDANT 270 1. Multiple Defendants in the Operating Room: Ybarra v. Spangard 270 2. Certain Unexplained Collisions on the Road: Joint Liability Unless Negligence Disproved 272 (a) Requirement of Some Evidence That Both Parties Negligent 275 (b) Multiple Defendants But No Liability 275 F. STATUTORY ONUS SHIFT 277 G. CARRIER CASES 278 H. TRESPASS, CASE AND INEVITABLE ACCIDENT 279 1. Trespass or Case 279 (a) History 279 (b) Cookv. Lewis 280 (c) Modernization in England. 280 (d) Canadian Resistance to Change 281 2. Inevitable Accident 283 3. Historical Anomalies or Tools for Justice? 284 CHAPTER 9. DUTY 287 A. THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE AND ITS PROGENY 288 1. Cooper v. Hobart 290 2. The Aftermath of Cooper v. Hobart 299 3. Summary of Cooper v. Hobart 303 4. Conclusion 309 B. THE UNFORESEEABLE PLAINTIFF 310 1. Born-alive Children and Pre-natal Accidents 311 2. Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Life, Wrongful Pregnancy 314 C. FAILURE TO ACT 316 1. Policy Underlying Nonfeasance Rule 319 2. Duty to Rescue: Special Situations 321 3. Misfeasance: Creation of Risk 323 4. Social Host Liability 326 5. Undertakings and Reliance 328 6. Duty of the Rescuer: East Suffolk Rivers Catchment
xviii Table of Contents Board v. Kent 332 7. Good Samaritan Legislation 334 D. LEGISLATION AND NONFEASANCE 335 1. Compulsory Insurance 337 (a) Critique 338 2. Hit-and-Run Statutes 339 (a) Policy 341 3. Other Legislation Relied on in Creating New Tort Duties 342 (a) Canada Shipping Act 342 (b) Railway A ct [now Canada Transportation Act] 343 (c) Criminal Code: Duty to Provide Necessaries 344 (d) Police 346 (e) Charter Damage Claims 348 (f) Lawsonv. WellesleyHospital 351 (g) Other Situations 352 4. Legislation Not Relied on to Fashion New Duty 353 (a) Snow-Clearing By-Laws 353 (i) Policy 355 (b) Human Rights Legislation 356 (c) Other Legislation 358 5. Limiting Principles 360 CHAPTER 10. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE: EXTENT OF LIABILITY 361 A. THE PROBLEM OF REMOTENESS OR SCOPE OF LIABILITY DEFINED 362 B. EARLY TECHNIQUES FOR LIMITING LIABILITY 363 C. THE RISE OF FORESIGHT: THE WAGON MOUND (NO. I) 364 D. RETREAT: HUGHES V. LORD AD VOCA TE: TYPE OF DAMAGE 366 1. Cases Imposing Liability 368 2. Cases Denying Liability 370 E. FURTHER RETREAT: THE WAGON MOUND (NO. 2): POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE OR REAL RISK OF DAMAGE 373 F. THE FAILURE OF FORESIGHT 376 G. A NEW APPROACH TO REMOTENESS 377 H. RECURRING SITUATIONS: THE THIN-SKULL PROBLEM... 382 1. Pre-existing Conditions 384 2. Persons Rendered More Susceptible 388 3. Mental Repercussions 388 4. Evidence of Causation 391 5. Policy 392 I. ANOTHER RECURRING SITUATION: THE RESCUER 393
Table of Contents xix 1. Duty of Persons Being Rescued to Their Own Rescuers 395 2. Rescue of Property 397 3. The Conduct of the Rescuer 398 (a) Reasonably Perceived Danger 398 (b) The Foolhardy Rescuer 398 (c) The Contributorily Negligent Rescuer 400 (d) "The Ogopogo" Case 402 (e) Onus of Proof 403 4. Policy 403 J. INTERVENING FORCES 404 1. Falls During Convalescence 407 2. Intervening Negligence 409 3. Intervening Intentional and Criminal Conduct 411 4. Intervening Conduct that Exonerates 415 5. Intervening Medical Error 417 6. Suicide 420 CHAPTER 11. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE 425 A. INTRODUCTION: SOME HISTORY 425 1. Policy Issues 426 2. Impact Rule 427 3. Breakthrough and Temporary Boundaries 428 B. THE PRESENT LAW 429 1. Type of Damage 429 2. Reasonable Foresight of Psychiatric Damage 432 (a) Witnessing Accident 434 (b) Seeing Aftermath of Accident 435 (c) Relationship 437 (d) Person Informed of Accident 440 (e) Person Injured in Same Accident Later Told About Tragedy 441 (f) Hypersensitive Individuals 443 (g) Negligent Communication 444 (h) Conclusion 444 CHAPTER 12. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF PURE ECONOMIC LOSS 447 A. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 450 1. Duty of Care 455 (a) Step One - Proximity 456 (b) Step Two - Reasons to Limit or Negative 461 (c) What Defendants? 466 (d) What Plaintiffs? 468
xx Table of Contents 2. Untrue, Inaccurate or Misleading Statement 469 3. Standard of Care 471 4. Reasonable Reliance 473 5. Resulting Damage 474 6. Contributory Negligence 474 B. NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A SERVICE 475 C. DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS AND STRUCTURES 479 D. RELATIONAL ECONOMIC LOSS 484 E. NEW CATEGORIES 489 CHAPTER 13. DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE: THE CONDUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF 493 A. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 493 1. The Meaning of Contributory Negligence 495 (a) Standard of Care 495 (b) Emergencies 497 (c) Causation and Proximate Cause 499 (d) Onus on Defendant and Pleading Points 500 2. Undermining the Stalemate Rule 501 (a) "Last Clear Chance" 501 (b) Agitation for Reform 502 3. Apportionment Legislation 503 (a) Survival of Last Clear Chance 504 (b) The Plaintiff and Last Clear Chance 507 (c) The Operation of Apportionment Legislation 507 (d) Multiple Parties 509 4. The Seatbelt Defence 511 (a) Seatbelt Defence Applied 511 (b) Problems of Calculation 516 B. VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK 518 1. Volenti is a Defence 519 2. The Meaning of Volenti 520 (a) Traditional Definition 521 (b) Definition Narrowed 522 (c) Effect of Defendant's Violation of Statute on Defence of Volenti 523 3. Sports 524 (a) Spectators 525 (b) Participants 525 4. Willing Passengers 528 C. ILLEGALITY 533 CHAPTER 14. STRICT LIABILITY 539 A. THE ORIGIN OF STRICT LIABILITY 541
Table of Contents xxi B. THE SCOPE OF STRICT LIABILITY 543 1. Non-Natural Use 544 (a) Water 544 (b) Fire 545 (c) Electricity, Gas and Explosives 546 (d) Other Strict Liability Activities 547 (e) Cases Where Strict Liability Not Applied 548 2. Escape 549 3. Personal Injury and Adjoining Landowners 550 4. Emerging Theory of Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities 552 C. DEFENCES TO STRICT LIABILITY 556 1. Consent of the Plaintiff. 556 2. Default of the Plaintiff. 557 3. Act of God 558 4. Deliberate Act of Third Person 559 5. Legislative Authority 560 D. VICARIOUS LIABILITY 563 CHAPTER 15. NUISANCE 569 A. PUBLIC NUISANCE 571 B. PRIVATE NUISANCE 578 1. Unreasonable Interference 580 (a) Type and Severity of Harm 580 (b) Character of Locale 584 (c) Abnormal Sensitivity 588 (d) Utility of Defendant's Conduct 589 2. Parties 592 (a) Who May Sue? 592 (b) Who May Be Sued? The Problem of Nonfeasance 592 C. DEFENCES 595 1. Legislative Authority 595 2. Statutory Immunity 600 3. Prescription 601 4. Acquiescence or Consent 602 5. Contributory Negligence and Volenti Non Fit Injuria 603 6. Act of Third Person 604 D. REMEDIES 604 1. Injunction 604 2. Damages 607 3. Abatement 609 CHAPTER 16. PRODUCTS LIABILITY 611
xxii Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION 611 B. LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS 615 1. What Products? 615 2. What Defendants? 618 3. What Plaintiffs? 621 4. Intermediate Inspection 623 (a) Proof of Causation 623 (b) Intervening Cause: Probability of Intermediate Examination 624 (c) Actual Knowledge of Defect 626 (d) Modern View of Shared Responsibility 627 (e) Negligent Plaintiff as Intermediate Inspector 629 (f) Intervening Deliberate Conduct 631 5. The Standard of Care 632 (a) Negligent Manufacture 632 (b) Negligent Design 634 (c) Negligent Warning 636 (i) Warning the Learned Intermediary 642 (ii) Warning After Sale 645 (d) Inherently Dangerous Things 646 6. Defences 648 (a) Contributory Negligence 648 (b) Volenti 649 (c) Abnormal Use 649 C. STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT 650 D. PROBLEMS OF PROOF 654 1. Causation 654 E. CLASS ACTIONS 657 CHAPTER 17. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY 659 A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND LEGISLATION 662 B. THE LAW BEFORE THE DECISION IN JUSTV. BRITISH COLUMBIA (1989) 666 C. THE POLICY-OPERATIONAL DISTINCTION 670 1. Just v. British Columbia and Its Immediate Aftermath 670 2. The Policy-Operational Case law 674 D. PROXIMITY IN PUBLIC AUTHORITY NEGLIGENCE: COOPER V. HOBART 684 E. STANDARD OF CARE AND CAUSATION 698 1. The Standard of Care 698 2. Causation 699 F. MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE 699
Table of Contents xxiii G. CONCLUSION 703 CHAPTER 18. OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY 705 A. THE COMMON LAW 705 1. Who is an Occupier? 706 2. Trespassers 706 3. Licensee or Invitee? 710 4. Licensees 712 5. Invitees 714 6. Contractual Entrants 716 7. Activity Duty 718 B. STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL REFORM 719 1. Alberta 720 2. British Columbia 725 3. Ontario 730 4. Manitoba 736 5. Nova Scotia 739 6. Saskatchewan 742 7. Judicial Reform: Newfoundland 744 8. Some Common Threads: Emerging Principles Under the "New" Occupiers' Liability Regimes 745 (a) The Reasonableness Threshold 745 (b) Looking Out for One's Own Safety 747 (c) Reasonably Safe in the Circumstances 747 ft) Supermarket Cases 748 (it) Ice Cases 749 (d) Voluntary Assumption of Risk 750 (e) Contributory Negligence 751 CHAPTER 19. DEFAMATION 755 A. WHAT IS DEFAMATORY? 757 1. The Various Tests 757 2. Standard 760 3. Interpretation 761 (a) Natural and Ordinary Meaning 761 (b) The Form of the Communication 763 (c) Innuendo 764 4. Identification 765 (a) Colloquium 765 (b) Group Defamation 766 5. Who May Be Defamed? 768 (a) Individuals 768 (b) Non-natural Persons 768 (c) Minority Groups: Hate Propaganda 770
xxiv Table of Contents B. LIBEL OR SLANDER? 770 1. Consequences of the Distinction 773 (a) Imputation of the Commission of a Crime 773 (b) Imputation of a Loathsome Disease 773 (c) Imputation of Unchastity to a Woman 774 (d) Imputation of Unfitness to Practice One s Trade or Profession 774 2. Special Damage 775 C. PUBLICATION 775 D. BASIS OF LIABILITY 779 1. Innocent Dissemination 780 2. Apology 781 E. DEFENCES 781 1. Justification 782 2. Absolute Privilege 783 (a) Judicial Proceedings 784 (b) Parliamentary Proceedings 786 (c) Executive Communications 786 (d) Other 787 3. Qualified Privilege 788 (a) Protection of One's Own Interest 789 (b) Common Interest or Mutual Concern 791 (c) Moral or Legal Duty to Protect Another's Interest 792 (d) Public Interest 794 (e) Malice 797 (f) Excess of Privilege 799 4. Responsible Communication (on Matters of Public Interest) 800 5. Fair Comment 802 6. Other Defences 808 7. The Charter 808 8. Some Damage Issues: General Damages, The Cap, Aggravated Damages, Punitive Damages and Injunctions 812 CHAPTER 20. THE CIVIL LAW OF DELICT IN QUEBEC 817 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR DELICTUAL LIABILITY 818 1. Capacity 819 2. Fault 821 (a) The Classification of Fault 821 (b) The Standard of Care 823 (c) Excuses and Justifications 823 (d) Abuse of Rights 825 3. Damage 826
Table of Contents xxv 4. Causation 828 B. LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OR FAULTS OF OTHERS 830 1. Parents, Educators and Guardians 830 2. Employers 832 C. LIABILITY FOR THINGS UNDER ONE'S CARE 834 1. General Regime 834 2. Damage Caused by Buildings 836 3. Damage Caused by Animals 837 Index 839