Donley Investments Limited v. Canril Corporation, 2011 ONCA 625 is a good source for the (uncontentious) point that the test for causation is 'but for':
3. Faulty causation analysis
[11] The trial judge erred in her causation analysis. In her reasons for judgment, she recognized that the evidence establishing a causal link between the damage to the respondent's building and any fault or wrong committed by the appellants was not strong and certainly was not made out on the basis of expert or scientific evidence. In her analysis of the applicable law, the trial judge did not refer to the standard "but for" test for causation. Rather, she held, citing Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, that causation could be established on the basis of material contribution to the occurrence of the injury that was greater than de minimis. In our view, the facts of this case do not justify deviating from the standard "but for" test for causation: Resurfice Corp. v. Henke, 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333. It follows that the trial judge erred in law by applying a more lenient test.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
4 comments:
As it should!
Just more Marxist mumbojumbo. Talk talk talk while the rich rip off the working people again. That's why the Fiberals msut be defeated.
Errh, Anon #2, figure out if you are a lefty or a righty. Rich ripping off working people sounds sort of Leftish to me...
This will not really work, I think like this.
Post a Comment