Category: Causation
Black Holes, Aether – Excerpt 1
The quoted paragraph is the last paragraph of the first part of “Black Holes, Aether”. The title of that part is: “Introduction: Negligence In The Air May Do.”
Part 2 of this article outlines the facts and result of Clements. Part 3 lays out the new explanation of the “impossibility” requirement provided in Clements: the requirement that it be impossible to validly use the but-for test to prove or disprove, on the balance of probability, that the negligence of any of the defendants whose negligence is alleged to have been a cause of the plaintiff’s injury was a cause. Part 4 discusses some of the issues that will have to be clarified in the meaning and application of the Clements’ explanation of the impossibility requirement. Part 5 discusses the significance of Clements to the other requirements of the material contribution to risk doctrine: “ambit of risk” and “fairness and justice”. Part 6 sketches some of the issues that will arise in claims for contribution where the basis of causation is material contribution to risk. Part 7 is a brief foray into the relationship between factual causation, material contribution to risk, and corrective justice. Part 8 deals with the status of the Athey material contribution to injury test after Clements. Part 9 discusses aspects of but-for doctrine as a result of Clements; particularly, the Supreme Courts affirmation that the Snell robust, pragmatic, commonsense approach to the application of the but-for test is the only method of properly applying the but-for test. The part also contains a brief discussion of a better test for factual causation on the balance of probability – one based on sufficiency rather than necessity: the NESS test. Part 10 sets out examples, by category. The categories show what should be the result of the factual causation inquiry if the current law is properly applied to the findings of fact made by the trial court. Part 11 contains general remarks about flaws in the Supreme Court’s approach to the issue of factual causation and brings the discussion to an end.
BLACK HOLES, AETHER, AND NEGLIGENCE IN THE AIR
BLACK HOLES, AETHER, AND NEGLIGENCE IN THE AIR
CAUSATION IN NEGLIGENCE IN CANADA AFTER CLEMENTS
is the title to my next (and likely last) piece of any significance on factual causation in Canadian tort law. I’ve just begun to reread the last draft for typographical errors, syntax problems, clarity, style, and anything else that needs to be fixed before it’s finished. When that’s done, the piece will be posted on SSRN. That will happen later this month. The paper “weighs” in at a mere (approximately) 65,000 words without footnotes, 95,000 words including footnotes. I’m going to post excerpts from the paper over the balance of this month. The Table of Contents will be posted as a fixed page that you can reach by clicking, here, or on the link at the top right under the Pages heading.
Indivisibility is …
a meaningless label or an admission that the judge or jury was unable to decide what the evidence means so opted to blame all of the defendants so that the plaintiff could recoup from the defendant(s) with assets.
Divisible injuries are those capable of being separated out and having their damages assessed independently. Indivisible injuries are those that cannot be separated or have liability attributed to the constituent causes.
Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361 at para. 20.
What follows is why the label is meaningless or an instance of sticking one’s hand into a wrongdoer’s pocket.
Clements, class actions, general causation
The statistical possibility of factual causation less than a probability may be enough for general causation in products liability class actions, even if it means the compensated class includes persons whose injury was not, in fact, caused by the product. See Bartram v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2012 BCSC 1804 at paras. 27-35.
Hhhmmmm ….
2012 SCC 32 is Clements v. Clements. The cases are listed chronologically below. The 19th, which isn’t included, is Clements. The search is limited to court cases. If you check for cases citing Clements through the citation tab on Clements, itself, you’ll get 20 hits. The 20th is a workers’ compensation tribunal decision.
I’ll try the search on one or the other of the commercial databases some other time.
Anybody notice a pattern?
Care to comment on the meaning of that pattern?

