Whitelaw Twining
  • Firm
  • Expertise
  • Our Team
  • Diversity
  • Updates
    • Firm News
    • Publications
    • Community
    • Commercial Litigation Blog
  • Careers
    • Overview
    • Students
    • Lawyers & Staff
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • 24/7 Response
  • Français (CA)
Home — Updates —

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the duty of care analysis and the policy/operational test to be applied in negligence claims against public entities.

10 26 2021
Share:
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail

Recently, in Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41 (“Marchi”), the Supreme Court of Canada took up the challenge of clarifying the analysis to be followed in tort claims brought in negligence against public entities.  In particular, the Supreme Court dealt with the enigmatic ‘core policy’ defence, and provided litigants with guidance on (a) the Anns-Cooper test, and (b) how to distinguish immune core policy decisions from government activities capable of attracting a finding of liability.

Concerning the application of the two step Anns-Cooper test, Marchi clarified that both steps are not required where the alleged duty of care falls within a previously recognized duty of care category. Where the relationship of proximity has previously been recognized, the Court suggests that the broad policy factors contemplated in the second step of the Anns-Cooper test are not key to the analysis.  They are presumed to have been previously considered and found not to negate the prima facie duty of care accepted under the first step. Marchi clarified that the core policy decision defence may be integrated into the second step of the Anns-Cooper test where a novel duty of care is alleged, or raised independently where the relationship of sufficient proximity is already recognized.

In seeking to clarify, and put forward a framework for classifying, what will constitute a “core policy” decision attracting immunity from liability, Marchi sets out four factors to be considered.  The four factors are: (1) the level and responsibilities of the decision-maker; (2) the process by which the decision in question was made; (3) the nature and extent of budgetary considerations;  and (4) the extent to which the decision was based on objective criteria. Marchi also provides important comments regarding the role of the judiciary in our constitutional system.

A factor-based analysis may help categorize some decisions that are at issue in civil matters.  However, going forward, it remains to be seen how Courts will handle the delicate task of categorizing, classifying, and commenting on the Marchi factors while adhering to the parameters of the judiciary’s constitutional sphere.

To view the full paper, please click here.

Key Contacts

  • Lindsey Galvin
    Alberta Managing Partner
    403 456 6246
    [email protected]

Author

  • Robert Fischer
Previous
Back
Next

Vancouver
2400 200 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1S4
604 682 5466
[email protected]

Calgary
2600 150 9th Ave SW
Calgary, AB  T2P 3H9
403 775 2200
[email protected]

Toronto
1100 123 Front Street West
Toronto, ON M5J 2M2
647 805 8470
[email protected]

Montreal
5 Place Ville Marie, Suite 900
Montréal, Québec H3B 2G2
514 470 1445
[email protected]

24/7 Emergency Line
1 778 558 0641

  • Page 1 Created with Sketch. wt.ca
  • LinkedIn
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • 24/7 Response
  • Firm
  • Expertise
  • People
  • Firm News
Disclaimer Privacy Policy Privacy Policy Montréal

2025 © WT BCA LLP. All Rights Reserved. WT BCA LLP is a limited liability partnership consisting of lawyers regulated by the Law Society of British Columbia and others, that provides services in accordance with a letter issued by the Law Society of British Columbia, which may be viewed here