Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 NOVEMBER 2011

Causation: Pick Your Theory Please!

Not a causation case in the country gets adjudicated without reference to Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.J. No. 7. In that seminal decision, the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to clarify when the "material contribution" test for causation displaces the "but for" test.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published in The Lawyers Weekly, May 28, 2010

Not a causation case in the country gets adjudicated without reference to Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.J. No. 7. In that seminal decision, the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to clarify when the "material contribution" test for causation displaces the "but for" test.

In order to apply the "material contribution" test, the court found that two requirements must be met. First, it must be impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff 's injury using the "but for" test, and the impossibility must be due to factors that are outside the plaintiff 's control. Second, it must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from