Duty of care from a public body to a private party

Today’s decision in River Valley Poultry Farm Ltd. v.  Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 326 sets out the Anns test as to when a duty of care is owed by a governmental body to a private party.  The Court writes:

 

The Anns Test

[31]          Whether either Health Canada or CFIA owed a duty of care to River Valley to investigate the possibility of DT104 contamination competently and promptly, or in a timely way, must be determined by applying the Anns test.  This test is derived from the House of Lords decision in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, and in Canada has been modified by more recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions: see, for example, Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; and Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263.

 

[32]          In its present Canadian form, the Anns test has three requirements.

 

·                    Reasonable foreseeability: Was it reasonably foreseeable that the actions of either Health Canada or CFIA would harm the economic interests of River Valley?

 

·                    Proximity: Was the relationship between either Health Canada or CFIA and River Valley sufficiently close and direct that it would be fair and just to impose a duty of care? 

 

Put differently, in conducting their investigations, were Health Canada and CFIA obliged to be mindful of River Valley’s legitimate economic interests?

 

·                    Absence of overriding policy considerations negating a duty of care: Although imposing a duty may be just, are there nonetheless broad policy considerations transcending the relationship between the parties that would make the imposition of a duty unwise?

 

[33]          The reasonable foreseeability and proximity requirements fall under Stage I of the Anns test.  The party seeking to establish a duty – here River Valley – has the onus of showing that both requirements have been met.  If River Valley establishes reasonable foreseeability and proximity then it has established a prima facie duty of care.

 

[34]          The requirement to show the absence of overriding policy considerations negating a prima facie duty falls under Stage II of the Anns test.  The party resisting the establishment of a duty – here Health Canada or CFIA – has the onus of meeting this requirement