Search

1. IntroductionIn Michael v Constable of South Wales the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ('UKSC') upheld the striking out of a negligence action brought by the estate of a [...]

The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law have always maintained close personal and professional ties. It is tradition to hold a [...]

On 19 April 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin signalled Canada's willingness to embark on a new collaborative relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples. At the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable, he stated, 'We [...]

"Involuntary parenthood" actions are negligence actions, usually medical malpractice cases involving a failed sterilization, inadequate warning about the risks of pregnancy, or a failed abortion. In Canada, they will soon also involve product liability claims against negligent birth control manufacturers, providers and regulators. This article considers whether the parents' damages ought to include the cost of raising the child. No Canadian appellate court has ever ruled on this point, although it has been adjudicated extensively by the highest courts elsewhere in the common law world. At least 7 different rules limiting such recovery have been endorsed in the Canadian lower courts. Most of the limiting rules are unique to involuntary parenthood cases, deviating from the outcome that would prevail were the standard rules of negligence law applied. Many have no rational foundation. This article concludes that the failure to compensate parents for the cost of raising the child cannot be justified. Rather the refusal to compensate for reasonable child rearing expenses constitutes discrimination against parents, especially women who are mothers. This discrimination is sometimes, perhaps often, perpetrated by judges who refuse to accept and protect a woman's right to reproductive freedom. These mothers are under-compensated, and the medical establishment that failed them is under-deterred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses a call for the simplification of negligence lawsuits which are filed against public authorities in Canada as of November 2012, focusing on an analysis of the standard of liability which is imposed on statutory public authorities. Canadian negligence and immunity laws are addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada case Cooper v. Hobart. The establishment of a prima facie duty of care is also examined.

The article presents a discussion of the rules and principles of pure economic loss in the U.S. It features the perspectives of American tort lawyers on economic loss in relation to tort law. Moreover, it offers information on the project launched by the American Law Institute aimed at producing Economic Torts, Restatement Third and Related Wrongs.