Ex turpi Doctrine: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Legal Prinicples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_turpi_causa_non_oritur_actio https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii141/1993canlii141.html?search...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Prinicples]] | [[Category:Legal Prinicples]] | ||
==<i>Hall v. Hebert,</i> 1993 CanLII 141 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 159<ref name="Hall"/> | |||
Per La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.: <b><u>Courts can bar recovery in tort on the ground of the plaintiff's immoral or illegal conduct but only in very limited circumstances. The basis of this power lies in duty of the courts to preserve the integrity of the legal system, and is exercisable only where this concern is in issue.</b></u> Generally, the ex turpi causa principle will not operate in tort to deny damages for personal injury, since tort suits will generally be based on a claim for compensation. The use of ex turpi causa is not justified where the plaintiff's claim is merely for compensation for personal injuries sustained as a consequence of the negligence of the defendant since no inconsistency is introduced into the fabric of the law in making such an award. | |||
The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio should not be replaced with a judicial discretion to negate or refuse to consider a duty of care on a policy basis. Shifting the analysis to the issue of duty provides no new insight into the fundamental question of when the courts should be entitled to deny recovery in tort to a plaintiff on the ground of the plaintiff's immoral or illegal conduct. It would also introduce a series of new problems. | |||
<ref name="Hall"><i>Hall v. Hebert,</i> 1993 CanLII 141 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 159, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fs4g>, retrieved on 2021-10-14</ref> | |||
Revision as of 16:51, 14 October 2021
==Hall v. Hebert, 1993 CanLII 141 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 159[1]
Per La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.: Courts can bar recovery in tort on the ground of the plaintiff's immoral or illegal conduct but only in very limited circumstances. The basis of this power lies in duty of the courts to preserve the integrity of the legal system, and is exercisable only where this concern is in issue. Generally, the ex turpi causa principle will not operate in tort to deny damages for personal injury, since tort suits will generally be based on a claim for compensation. The use of ex turpi causa is not justified where the plaintiff's claim is merely for compensation for personal injuries sustained as a consequence of the negligence of the defendant since no inconsistency is introduced into the fabric of the law in making such an award.
The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio should not be replaced with a judicial discretion to negate or refuse to consider a duty of care on a policy basis. Shifting the analysis to the issue of duty provides no new insight into the fundamental question of when the courts should be entitled to deny recovery in tort to a plaintiff on the ground of the plaintiff's immoral or illegal conduct. It would also introduce a series of new problems.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Hall v. Hebert, 1993 CanLII 141 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 159, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fs4g>, retrieved on 2021-10-14
