Aliénation of Affection (Tort)
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII)[1]
[240] A statutory remedy can also suffice to show that a new nominate tort is unnecessary. For example, in Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, 1981 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181, at p. 195[2], this Court held that the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1970, c. 318 (“Code”) foreclosed the development of a common law tort based on the same policies embodied in the Code. Similarly, in Frame, at p. 111, the Court declined to create a common law tort concerning alienation of affection in the family context because the legislature had occupied the field through the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 68.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5k5j>, retrieved on 2020-10-16
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Seneca College v. Bhadauria, 1981 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 181, <http://canlii.ca/t/1mjln>, retrieved on 2020-10-16