What the heck did the Ontario Court of Appeal mean when it spoke of an "Implied Statutory Duty of Care"?

The following Canadian Appeals Monitor blog post by Anthony Alexander may be of interest to readers of this blog:

The Second Opinion:  What the heck did the Ontario Court of Appeal mean when it spoke of an "Implied Statutory Duty of Care"?

In the past decade, the staid law of negligence has undergone a number of interesting developments in Canada, focusing particularly on the threshold question of whether a duty of care is or is not owed by a particular plaintiff to a particular defendant in novel circumstances.

A recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Rausch v. The Corporation of the City of Pickering, 2013 ONCA 740, has highlighted an interesting and relatively obscure aspect of this question.

The Rausch ruling turned on a dispute between a farmer and a municipality.  The farmer raised wild boars, and the city warned him that his business violated the municipal Exotic Animals By-law.  After shutting down his operation, the farmer came to the conclusion that the city had been mistaken, and that his operation had, in fact, been exempted from the By-law by the provincial Farming and Food Production Protection Act (or the FFPPA).  Read more.

Subscribe

Stay Connected

Get the latest posts from this blog

Please enter a valid email address