R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1983 SCC)- grain supplied to SWP was infested w/ rusty beetle making grain unmarketable, and casuing substanital losses to farmers who attemptes to sue SWP for neg’ce – the statute included regulatory provisions for the quality of grain, imposing fines for contamination, but was silent about civil liablty-could a tort in neg;ce be implied?
England- recognises tort of statutory breach if the following can be shown: breach of statute; resulting damages- should ask: was statute created to protect individuals (gives rise ot a tort duty) or the public at large (no tort duty)
America-breach of staue is neg;ce so burden will shift back to D; can substitute statutory standard for reasonable person in standard neg;ce
Canada-breach of staute is evidence of neg’ce, but in this case, b/c bad grain is hard to identify, may not be laible but are still statutorialy liable EXCEPTION: where there is no duty of care at common law, a breach of nonindustrial penal legislation should not affect civil liability unless statute provides for it.
1) Civil consequences for violating statues should be subsumed in the law of neg’ce
2) Reject the notion of a nominate tort of statutory breach
3) Proof of a statutory breach can be evidence of negligence
4) Statutory formulation of duty = useful standard of reasonable conduct
3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION
Bux v Slough Metals Ltd. (1974 CA)- – there was a statutory duty to provide worker with goggles that would have prevented the accident
-a statutory duty will not abrogate, supercede, define, or measure a common law duty
– a statutory duty will not eliminate the need for cts to decide whether or not the employer took reasonable care
– must do more than supply goggles as per statue, must also encourage workers to wear them
– where common law and statutory standards differ, must meet the highest one
4. A NOTE ON THE CHARTER
– remedies under 24(1)= express statutory action
XV RECOVERY OF PURE ECONOMIC LOSS IN NEGLIGENCE
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964 HL)- pure economic loss can be recoverable when they are a direct and forseeable result of of the Ps reliance on a negligent misrep. by the D.
Kamploops v Nielson (1990 SCC)- P can recover for pure economic loss from a public authority
BDC Ltd. v Hofstrand Farms Lts. (1986 SCC)- providers of commercial services can be held liable for the pure economic losses of those within sufficient legal proximity – assesment of proximity will be based upon knowledge and reliance
1. Product Quality Claims
Rivtow Marine v Washington Iron Works (1974 SCC) – leading case on recovery of economic losses suffered by nonprivity user of defective products – no need for actual damage befroe liabilty will be imposed¬ – manuf. and distributor w/held knowledge of risk, also knew dates of peak season for buisness, exposing P to risk of losing business -duty to warn commences at earliest opp’ty
2. Relational Economic Loss
CNR V Norsk Pacific Steamship CO. (1992 SCC) -P was the principal user of a bridge that was damaged when the D’s barge collied with it thru neg’ce causing closure for several weeks – P suffered huge economic loss- was it recoverable? YES by adopting the Anns test and principles of Kamploops necessary duty and proximity were est. and valid purposes were served in permitting recovery
Winnipeg Condominium Corp v Bird Cnstruction (1995 SCC)- in the absence of a K’l reln’ship thrid party purchasers were able to recover costs of repair to defects in buiding that had been casued by builders negligence – forseeable that harm could occur b/c of defect.