Aliénation of Affection (Tort): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII)<ref name="Nevsun"/>== | ==Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII)<ref name="Nevsun"/>== | ||
[240] A statutory remedy can also suffice to show that a new nominate tort is unnecessary. For example, in <i>Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, 1981 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181, at p. 195</i><ref name="Bhadauria"/>, 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. | |||
<ref name="Nevsun">Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5k5j>, retrieved on 2020-10-16</ref> | <ref name="Nevsun">Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5k5j>, retrieved on 2020-10-16</ref> | ||
<ref name="Bhadauria">Seneca College v. Bhadauria, 1981 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 181, <http://canlii.ca/t/1mjln>, retrieved on 2020-10-16</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 18:43, 16 October 2020
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
