Category: Civil Litigation
Broken record time: who’s the boss, or, why invite an appeal?
Gleizer v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1037
[100] The plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendant’s negligence caused or materially contributed to an injury. The defendant’s negligence need not be the sole cause of the injury so long as it is part of the cause beyond the range of de minimus. Causation need not be determined by scientific precision: Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at paras. 13-17; Farrant v. Laktin, 2011 BCCA 336 at para. 9.
[101] The primary test for causation asks: but-for the defendant’s negligence, would the plaintiff have suffered the injury? The “but-for” test recognizes that compensation for negligent conduct should only be made where a substantial connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct is present: Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32.
…
[104] Applying these principles to this case, I must determine whether the MVA caused the plaintiff’s injuries …
…
[122] In conclusion, I find that the defendant’s negligence caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff’s … injur[ies] …
Analogies, Philosophers’ Stones, and Finding the Causative Snark
“Analogy” as defined at www.oxforddictionaries.com:
1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification: ..
…
1.3 … Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects: …
So, tell me again, please: Why is a raven like a writing desk?
Factual causation in tort: Necessary reading for Canadian lawyers and jurists
Just published in the 2014 Supreme Court Law Review: Russell Brown, “Cause-in-Fact at the Supreme Court of Canada: Developments in Tort Law in 2012–2013” (2014) 63 SCLR (2d) 327.
Added June 13, 2014: For those who don’t know, Russell Brown is now Mr. Justice Brown of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Added Feb 11/14 June 13, 2014: I’m going to discuss the article in some detail over the next month or two eventually.
I quote portions of the introduction and the conclusion in the next screen.
Sloppy proof-reading in reasons for judgment
doesn’t help to engender respect.
Or anything else useful.
Or alleviate confusion that shouldn’t exist.
Or … [insert appropriate term.]
When it results in a misstatement of law that’s so egregious that we have to assume the judge(s) responsible for it know better.
The “robust and pragmatic” approach: Abracadabra or As Night Follows Day
You’ll have to follow the bouncing ball or, in this case, the quotations from the cases. The commentary follows the quotations.
The 4th Monkey Still in Abstenia 