It's the second pronouncement in six weeks from the
SCC on the duty of care owed by public authorities. It seems that
Cromwell J. has persuaded his colleagues to move slowly away from the
Cooper v. Hobart idea of finding "proximity" in statutes.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:36
PM
Subject: ODG: Vicarious Liability and
Non-Delegable Duty in the SCC
Dear Colleagues:
Those interested in vicarious liability
and non-delegable duty will be interested in the newly released decision of
the SCC in Reference re Broome v. Prince Edward
Island 2010 SCC 11 (http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc11/2010scc11.html).
The question in the case was whether the Government of PEI was liable for
sexual abuse in privately-owned children's homes and orphanages between
1928-1976 on the basis that the province: owed a general duty of care to the
children placed in the Home; had any statutory duty to supervise the operation
of the Home; was vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the Board of
Trustees, who were entrusted to operate the Home, or the volunteers or staff
at the Home; owed a fiduciary duty to the residents of the Home; or had a
non-delegable duty in respect of the care given to the residents of the
Home.
The SCC unanimously found that the province was not liable on any
of the plaintiff's theories, save perhaps for the 14 children who were wards
of the Crown during those years.
Happy reading,
--
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435