Negligence (General)

Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII), (2008) 2 SCR 114

[3] A successful action in negligence requires that the plaintiff demonstrate (1) that the defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) that the defendant's behaviour breached the standard of care; (3) that the plaintiff sustained damage; and (4) that the damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant's breach. I shall examine each of these elements of negligence in turn. As I will explain, Mr. Mustapha's claim fails because he has failed to establish that his damage was caused in law by the defendant's negligence. In other words, his damage are too remote to allow recovery.

[4] The first question to consider in an action for negligence is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. The question focuses on the relationship between the parties. It asks whether this relationship is so close that the one may reasonably be said to owe the other a duty to take care not to injure the other: Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.). Whether such a relationship exists depends on foreseeability, moderated by policy concerns: Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.).

[7] The second question in a negligence action is whether the defendant’s behaviour breached the standard of care. A defendant’s conduct is negligent if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 130). The trial judge found that the defendant Culligan breached the standard of care by providing the plaintiff with contaminated water, and the parties did not appeal that finding before this Court. This is hardly surprising; it is clear that a supplier of bottled water intended for personal consumption is under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the water is not contaminated by foreign elements. The second element of liability in tort for negligence is therefore met.

[8] Generally, a plaintiff who suffers personal injury will be found to have suffered damage. Damage for purposes of this inquiry includes psychological injury. The distinction between physical and mental injury is elusive and arguably artificial in the context of tort. As Lord Lloyd said in Page v. Smith, [1996] 1 A.C. 155 (H.L.), at p. 188:

In an age when medical knowledge is expanding fast, and psychiatric knowledge with it, it would not be sensible to commit the law to a distinction between physical and psychiatric injury, which may already seem somewhat artificial, and may soon be altogether outmoded. Nothing will be gained by treating them as different “kinds” of personal injury, so as to require the application of different tests in law. [Emphasis added.]

[9] This said, psychological disturbance that rises to the level of personal injury must be distinguished from psychological upset. Personal injury at law connotes serious trauma or illness: see Hinz v. Berry, [1970] 2 Q.B. 40 (C.A.), at p. 42; Page v. Smith, at p. 189; Linden and Feldthusen, at pp. 425-27. The law does not recognize upset, disgust, anxiety, agitation or other mental states that fall short of injury. I would not purport to define compensable injury exhaustively, except to say that it must be serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely, if sometimes reluctantly, accept. The need to accept such upsets rather than seek redress in tort is what I take the Court of Appeal to be expressing in its quote from Vanek v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada (1999), 1999 CanLII 2863 (ON CA), 48 O.R. (3d) 228 (C.A.): “Life goes on” (para. 60). Quite simply, minor and transient upsets do not constitute personal injury, and hence do not amount to damage.

[11] The fourth and final question to address in a negligence claim is whether the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s harm in fact and in law. The evidence before the trial judge establishes that the defendant’s breach of its duty of care in fact caused Mr. Mustapha’s psychiatric injury. We are not asked to revisit this conclusion. The remaining question is whether that breach also caused the plaintiff’s damage in law or whether it is too remote to warrant recovery.

[12] The remoteness inquiry asks whether “the harm [is] too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable” (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 360). Since The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the principle has been that “it is the foresight of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C.), at p. 424).

[13] Much has been written on how probable or likely a harm needs to be in order to be considered reasonably foreseeable. The parties raise the question of whether a reasonably foreseeable harm is one whose occurrence is probable or merely possible. In my view, these terms are misleading. Any harm which has actually occurred is “possible”; it is therefore clear that possibility alone does not provide a meaningful standard for the application of reasonable foreseeability. The degree of probability that would satisfy the reasonable foreseeability requirement was described in The Wagon Mound (No. 2) as a “real risk”, i.e. “one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendan[t] . . . and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty., [1967] A.C. 617 (P.C.), at p. 643).

[14] The remoteness inquiry depends not only upon the degree of probability required to meet the reasonable foreseeability requirement, but also upon whether or not the plaintiff is considered objectively or subjectively. One of the questions that arose in this case was whether, in judging whether the personal injury was foreseeable, one looks at a person of “ordinary fortitude” or at a particular plaintiff with his or her particular vulnerabilities. This question may be acute in claims for mental injury, since there is a wide variation in how particular people respond to particular stressors. The law has consistently held — albeit within the duty of care analysis — that the question is what a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer: see White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1509 (H.L.); Devji v. Burnaby (District) (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 205, 1999 BCCA 599; Vanek. As stated in White, at p. 1512: “The law expects reasonable fortitude and robustness of its citizens and will not impose liability for the exceptional frailty of certain individuals.”

[15] As the Court of Appeal found, at para. 49, the requirement that a mental injury would occur in a person of ordinary fortitude, set out in Vanek, at paras. 59-61, is inherent in the notion of foreseeability. This is true whether one considers foreseeability at the remoteness or at the duty of care stage. As stated in Tame v. New South Wales (2002), 211 C.L.R. 317, [2002] HCA 35, per Gleeson C.J., this “is a way of expressing the idea that there are some people with such a degree of susceptibility to psychiatric injury that it is ordinarily unreasonable to require strangers to have in contemplation the possibility of harm to them, or to expect strangers to take care to avoid such harm” (para. 16). To put it another way, unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable.

Mitchell v Forestwood Co-operative Homes Inc., 2015 ONSC 6649 (CanLII)

[15] In Mustapha v. Culligan, 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII), (2008) 2 S.C.R. 114 the Supreme Court of Canada in the judgment of Chief Justice McLachlin set out what a plaintiff must prove to establish negligence of a defendant as follows:

3 A successful action in negligence requires that the plaintiff demonstrate (1) that the defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) that the defendant's behaviour breached the standard of care; (3) that the plaintiff sustained damage; and (4) that the damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant's breach. I shall examine each of these elements of negligence in turn. As I will explain, Mr. Mustapha's claim fails because he has failed to establish that his damage was caused in law by the defendant's negligence. In other words, his damage are too remote to allow recovery.

[16] Mitchell pleads no facts on which a court could find that Forestwood owed him a duty of care. Absent a duty of care a court could not find that Forestwood’s conduct caused him to suffer damages for which it is liable.

Soulos v. Korkontzilas, 1997 CanLII 346 (SCC), (1997) 2 SCR 217

63 Even aside from the case law, in my view, the unavailability of a constructive trust in the absence of unjust enrichment is consistent with the constructive trust’s remedial role. The respondent submitted that if no remedy is available in the present case, there would inappropriately be a right without a remedy. I disagree. Clearly, the beneficiary has a right to have the fiduciary adhere to its duty, and if damages are suffered, the beneficiary has a right to a remedy. In my view, this is analogous to remedial principles found elsewhere in the private law. Even if a duty is owed and breached in other legal contexts, there is no remedy unless a loss has been suffered. I may owe a duty to my neighbour to shovel snow off my walk, and I may breach that duty, but if my neighbour does not suffer any loss because of the breached duty, there is no tort and no remedy. Similarly, I may have a contractual duty to supply goods at a specific date for a specific price, but if I do not and the other party is able to purchase the same goods at the contract price at the same time and place, the party has not suffered damage and no remedy is available. It is entirely consistent with these rules to state that even if a fiduciary breaches a duty, if the fiduciary is not unjustly enriched by the breach, there is no remedy.

Richard v. 2464597 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 2104 (CanLII)

[30] The standard of care in negligence cases is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the circumstances. As stated in Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1999 CanLII 706 (SCC), (1999) 1 S.C.R. 201], at para. 28:

"Conduct is negligent if it creates an objectively unreasonable risk of harm. To avoid liability, a person must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances. The measure of what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, including the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm, the gravity of that harm, and the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury. In addition, one may look to external indicators of reasonable conduct, such as custom, industry practice, and statutory or regulatory standards. [Emphasis added]"

[36] It is not disputed that in cases alleging professional negligence, expert testimony is generally required. There are two exceptions to this general rule. The first is where the court is faced with non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to have knowledge. The second is where the actions are so egregious that it is obvious that the conduct has fallen short of the standard of care, even without knowing precisely the parameters of that standard: see 495793 Ontario Ltd. (Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, 2016 ONCA 656 (CanLII), at paras. 53-57.

Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp., 2012 ONSC 657 (CanLII)

[170] The conventional standard of care that is applied in an action for negligence is that of the ordinary, reasonable, cautious and prudent person in the position and circumstances of the defendant: Ryan v. Victoria (City), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 201, at 222. The reasonable person is neither exceptional nor extraordinary. He or she is a person of normal intelligence who makes prudence a guide to conduct, doing nothing that a prudent person would not do and not avoiding doing anything that a prudent person would do: see Canada (Attorney General) v. Dingle Estate, 2000 NSCA 5, [2000] N.S.J. No 4, at para. 31; Burbank v. B (R.T.), 2007 BCCA 215, [2007] B.C.L. No. 752, at para. 60; Fridman et. al., at 366. What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, and includes a consideration of the likelihood (or foreseeability) of the harm, the gravity of the harm, and the costs that would have to be incurred in order to prevent the harm: Ryan, at 526. These factors are to be assessed as of the time of the alleged breach and not in light of subsequent developments: see Desautels v. Katimavik (2003), 2003 CanLII 39372 (ON CA), 175 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.); Nattrass v. Weber, 2010 ABCA 64, [2010] A.J. No. 424, leave to appeal dismissed, 2010 S.C.C.A. No. 159.