Negligence: Duty of Care

[warrior_won]

I'm doing research on actions brought before Canadian Courts for negligence. I'm looking specifically at Duty of Care and failure to meet the standard of care.

I'm offering the findings of my research here for anyone who may be interested. The first case I'm looking at is:
McPhail's Equipment Co. Ltd. v. Roxanne III, 1994 (BC S.C.)

The BC S.C. means Supreme Court of British Columbia

You can read the case Here.

The issue considered by Mr. Justice Brouck is:

Issue

Are there sufficient facts to indicate that the plaintiff may succeed against Mr. Langdon in its claim of negligence?

Mr. Justice Brouck asserts the criteria for finding a cause of action in a negligence claim. He writes:

The proposed claim against Mr. Langdon is based in negligence. A cause of action in negligence requires a positive answer to 3 essential questions before it will succeed. Duty of care is only one of them. Failure to obtain a positive answer with respect to any one question means the negligence action must fail. The questions are:

a)Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?

b)Did the defendant fail to meet the standard of care the law imposes with respect to that duty?

c)Did the breach of the standard of care by the defendant cause the damages suffered by the plaintiff?

 

[gerryh]

and your point is?



and BTW, I agree with the Justice.

 

[warrior_won]

and your point is?

There is no point. I'm just sharing information, which I adequately stated in the original post.

and BTW, I agree with the Justice.

That's nice.

 

[gerryh]

Ok...so just another pointless post and thread contribution.

 

[warrior_won]

Here's a case involving Credit Reporting Agencies (Credit Bureaus). I'm just weening the bits from the case that I find interesting and presenting it here.

In
Haskett v. Equifax Canada Inc., 2003


You can read it Here

In this case, Feldman J.A., cited this policy concern:

[17]The second policy concern was that there are alternative statutory routes within the Consumer Reporting Act to address the problem, including: (a) methods for disputing the accuracy or completeness of reported information and for having the file corrected (s.13); (b) procedures for an aggrieved consumer to seek the assistance of the Registrar and to appeal any decision to a tribunal for a hearing (ss.14, 16); and (c) provisions empowering the Director, as defined by the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M-21,to investigate and take action against transgressions of the Consumer Reporting Act (ss.18, 21).The motion judge noted that the appellant had not pleaded any attempt to obtain relief under any of the statutory routes.

Since gerryh is wishing that there be a point, here is the point of this reply:

Where the law provides alternatives to Court Action, the Court will expect you to exhaust those alternatives prior to bringing the matter before a Court.

 

[gerryh]

Since gerryh is wishing that there be a point, here is the point of this reply:

Where the law provides alternatives to Court Action, the Court will expect you to exhaust those alternatives prior to bringing the matter before a Court.

Of course, that's a no brainer. Why waste the courts time and money when there are alternatives?

 

[warrior_won]

Ok...so just another pointless post and thread contribution.

Pointless? The only pointless contribution to this thread is your reply. Since you are incapable of seeing the obvious relevance of this thread to these forums and the consumer awareness section of the forums in particular, I will paint you a picture.

It is apparent to anyone that reads the threads in this section that several contributers may or have found themselves at the sh!tty end of the negligence stick. For members of these forums who may have an interest in bringing negligence suits, it may be in their interest to see how the Courts of this country have ruled in similar matters.

It may be of great interest of several forum members to know what criteria Judges have considered in the past, what policy concerns they have raised, and it may also prove encouraging to learn that others have been there before.

Do you want to see my drivers license and insurance papers too, gerryh? Or does it just make you happy to be an asshole? Either way, you're now on my ignore list.

 

[warrior_won]

Of course, that's a no brainer. Why waste the courts time and money when there are alternatives?

I know it is a no-brainer. But if you've ever gone through these alternative channels, you will often find that they tell you "that's a matter for a Court to decide." It might be helpful in dealing with these alternative channels to point out that the Courts have already said that it is something for YOU to deal with.

Perhaps you could bring a claim against the "alternative" channel... Who knows? They do have a statutory Duty of Care...

 

[lone wolf]

So ... what IS is you've evaded by whatever means being charged with? Now you're creeping ME out.

Woof!

 

[warrior_won]

So ... what IS is you've evaded by whatever means being charged with? Now you're creeping ME out.

Woof!

This thread is not for discussion of me. If you wish the answer to that question, you may either send me a PM or start a thread of your own. I will start no thread on this forum about myself... For it will only bring allegations from you that I am using these forums as a launching pad for my own personal agenda.

I do not wish to have the subject of this thread derailed. I'm sure you can understand my position, and I'm certain that you will find my response most reasonable.

 

[gerryh]

This thread is not for discussion of me. If you wish the answer to that question, you may either send me a PM or start a thread of your own. I will start no thread on this forum about myself... For it will only bring allegations from you that I am using these forums as a launching pad for my own personal agenda.

I do not wish to have the subject of this thread derailed. I'm sure you can understand my position, and I'm certain that you will find my response most reasonable.

and what exactley is the "subject" of this thread?