D.N. et al. v. Oak Bay (District) et al., 2005 BCSC 1412

• Judge: Silverman, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: October 11, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2005 BCSC 1412;[2005] B.C.T.C. 1412 (SC)

D.N. v. Oak Bay, [2005] B.C.T.C. 1412 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.T.C. TBEd. NO.033

D.N. and D.S.G. (plaintiffs) v. The Corporation of the District of Oak Bay, Johan Aavik and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (defendants)

(00/4742; 2005 BCSC 1412)

Indexed As: D.N. et al. v. Oak Bay (District) et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Victoria

Silverman, J.

October 11, 2005.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Editor's note: certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Torts - Topic 48.3

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Probation officers - See paragraphs 80 to 100.

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - Test for (incl. "but for" test and "material contribution") - See paragraphs 101 to 112.

Torts - Topic 61

Negligence - Causation - Causal connection - See paragraphs 101 to 112.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - See paragraphs 46 to 80.

Torts - Topic 86

Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - See paragraphs 46 to 80.

Cases Noticed:

Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 46].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268, refd to. [para. 47].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v,. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office, [1970] A.C. 1004 (H.L.), consd. [para. 64].

O'Rourke et al. v. Schacht, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 53; 3 N.R. 453, consd. [para. 64].

Hendrick v. DeMarsh and Brennan et al. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 463 (H.C.), consd. [para. 64].

Jane Doe v. Board of Police Commissioners of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 161; 74 O.R.(2d) 225 (C.A.), consd. [para. 64].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201, consd. [para. 64].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388, consd. [para. 75].

Mooney v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 74; 331 W.A.C. 74; 31 B.C.L.R.(4th) 61 (C.A.), consd. [para. 101].

Sabourin et al. v. Watterodt et al. (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 301; 352 W.A.C. 301; 2005 BCCA 348, refd to. [para. 107].

Counsel:

D.W. Thompson, for the plaintiffs;

D.C. McKay, for the defendant, The Corporation of the District of Oak Bay;

K.L. Johnston, for the defendants, Johan Aavik and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia.

This case was heard on June 27-29, 2005, before Silverman, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on October 11, 2005.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.