NCA Canadian Common Law Foundations 2

Question 1

The foundational case for negligence in Canadian law is Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]. Which concept did Lord Atkin articulate that forms the basis of the duty of care?

Accepted Answer

The 'neighbour principle'—one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be expected to injure one's neighbours

Answer

Lord Atkin's neighbour principle asks: who in law is my neighbour? Persons so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in mind when directing my acts or omissions. This became the seed of modern duty of care analysis.

Question 2

The Canadian test for establishing a duty of care in negligence cases was reformulated by the SCC in which case, building on Anns v. Merton London Borough Council?

Accepted Answer

Cooper v. Hobart [2001]

Answer

Cooper v. Hobart [2001] (along with Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada) refined the Anns/Cooper test: (1) Is there a sufficiently close relationship (proximity) to give rise to a prima facie duty? (2) Are there policy reasons to negate or limit the duty? This is the standard Canadian test.

Question 3

In the law of torts, the 'eggshell skull' rule (thin skull rule) provides that:

Accepted Answer

A defendant must take the plaintiff as found and is liable for the full extent of harm even if the plaintiff's particular vulnerability was unforeseeable

Answer

The thin skull (eggshell skull) rule holds that a tortfeasor takes the victim as they find them. If the defendant's negligent act triggers an unforeseeable injury due to the plaintiff's pre-existing condition, the defendant is liable for the full extent of harm. This is distinct from the 'crumbling skull' doctrine.

Question 4

Under Canadian tort law, which test for causation applies in most negligence cases?

Accepted Answer

The 'but for' test—the plaintiff must prove that but for the defendant's negligence, the harm would not have occurred

Answer

The 'but for' test is the primary causation standard in Canadian negligence law (Athey v. Leonati [1996]; Clements v. Clements [2012]). The material contribution test is reserved for cases where it is impossible to apply 'but for' due to multiple independent sufficient causes.

Question 5

The defence of contributory negligence in Canadian common law provinces:

Accepted Answer

Reduces the plaintiff's damages proportionately to the plaintiff's degree of fault under contributory negligence legislation

Answer

All common law provinces have enacted contributory negligence or tortfeasors acts that replace the old common law complete bar with apportionment. Damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's contributory fault—a plaintiff 30% at fault recovers 70% of damages.

NCA Exam Practice Test

NCA Exam Practice Test

NCA Canadian Common Law Foundations 2