Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece
*ISTHATLEGAL* LEGAL RESEARCH

Services for Self-Represented Clients, Paralegals and Lawyers

* Online Law Since 2005 (Ontario) *

simonshields@isp.com
Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law)
/ line fences / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada) / war

home / about / client testimonials / subject areas / about self-representation / conditions of guide use

Legal Topics in
the Works




Torts - Negligence - Causation

Martin-Vandenhende v. Myslik (Ont CA, 2015)

In this case the Court of Appeal briefly set out the correct approach to testing for causation of damages in tort:
[65] The basic test for determining causation is the “but for” test: Clements v. (Litigation Guardian of) Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181, at para. 8. The plaintiff must show that “but for” the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. Only if “special circumstances” make it impossible to prove “but for” causation and if applying the test “would offend basic notions of fairness and justice” will the “material contribution” test apply: Hanke v. Resurfice Corp., 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333, at paras. 24-25; Clements, at paras. 27-28.

Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2019