Dobson v. Dobson and Carter, (1999) 214 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Citation: (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (SCC),[1999] SCJ No 41 (QL),547 APR 201,45 CCLT (2d) 217,1999 CanLII 698 (SCC),214 NBR (2d) 201,242 NR 201,174 DLR (4th) 1,[1999] 2 SCR 753
• Date: 08 December 1998
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,TORTS,INFANTS

Dobson v. Dobson (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (SCC);

    214 R.N.-B.(2e) 201; 547 A.P.R. 201

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.012

Cynthia Dobson (appellant) v. Ryan Leigh MacLean Dobson by his Litigation Guardian, Gerald M. Price (respondent) and The Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life (interveners)

(26152)

Indexed As: Dobson v. Dobson and Carter

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

July 9, 1999.

Summary:

Dobson was involved in a motor vehicle accident when she was 27 weeks pregnant. The child was delivered later that day by caesarian section. The child's prenatal in­juries caused permanent mental and physi­cal impairment. The child sued Dobson, alleging negligence. The parties sought a deter­mination by way of a pretrial motion as to whether the child had the legal capacity to sue his mother for prenatal injuries allegedly caused by her negligence.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 186 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 476 A.P.R. 81, held that although a foetus was not recognized in law as a "person", the law recognized that an action could be sustained by a child against a parent and against a stranger for injuries suffered by a child before birth. The court stated that it seemed to be "a reasonable progression to allow an action by a child against his mother for prenatal injuries caused by her negligence". Dobson appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 189 N.B.R.(2d) 208; 482 A.P.R. 208, dismissed the appeal. Dobson appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Infants - Topic 105

Foetus - Juridical personality - Right to sue parent for injuries suffered before birth - Dobson was involved in a motor vehicle accident when she was 27 weeks pregnant - The child was delivered later that day by caesarian section - The child's prenatal injuries caused permanent mental and physical impairment - The child sued Dobson, alleging negligence - At issue was whether a mother should be liable in tort for damages to her child arising from a prenatal negligent act which allegedly injured the foetus in her womb - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "[t]he public policy concerns raised in this case are of such a nature and magnitude that they clearly indicate that a legal duty of care cannot, and should not, be imposed by the courts upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child" - The policy concerns related primarily to the privacy and autonomy rights of women and the difficulties inherent in articulating a judicial standard of conduct for pregnant women - The court stated that it was for the legislature to enact legislation in this field - See paragraphs 1 to 82.

Infants - Topic 105

Foetus - Juridical personality - Right to sue parent for injuries suffered before birth - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court should not impose tort liability upon a mother for damages to her child arising from a prenatal negligent act which al­legedly injured the foetus - The court noted the particularly unique relationship that existed between a pregnant woman and the foetus she carries - The imposition of tort liability would result in very exten­sive and unacceptable intrusions into the bodily integrity, privacy and autonomy rights of women - It would restrict a preg­nant woman's activities, reduce her autono­my to make decisions concerning her health, and have a negative impact upon her employment opportunities - See para­graphs 23 to 48, 77 to 79.

Practice - Topic 132

Persons who can sue and be sued - Infants - Foetus - [See first Infants - Topic 105 ].

Torts - Topic 8801

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for prenatal injuries - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the difficulties of articulating a standard of conduct for pregnant women towards her foetus or born alive child - See paragraphs 49 to 75 - The court stated that "there can be no satisfactory judicial articulation of a stan­dard of conduct for pregnant women. A rule based on a 'reasonable pregnant wom­an' standard raises the spectre of tort lia­bility for lifestyle choices, and under­mines the privacy and autonomy rights of wom­en. A compromise judicial solution, based on the murky distinction between 'lifestyle choices peculiar to parenthood' and a 'general duty of care' owed to third par­ties, is simply too vague to be manage­able, and will inevitably lead to inequitable and uncertain results. Finally, a rule based on a strictly defined motor vehicle excep­tion to delineate the scope of maternal tort liability should not be created by the ju­diciary." - See paragraphs 80, 81.

Torts - Topic 8801

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for prenatal injuries - [See both Infants - Topic 105 ].

Cases Noticed:

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 5, 98].

Deziel v. Deziel, [1953] 1 D.L.R. 651 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 93].

Montreal Tramways Co. v. Léveillé, [1933] S.C.R. 456, consd. [paras. 6, 93].

R. v. Sullivan and Lemay, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489; 122 N.R. 166; 3 C.R.(4th) 277; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 55 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Northwest v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925; 219 N.R. 241; 121 Man.R.(2d) 241; 158 W.A.C. 241, consd. [paras. 8, 96].

Bonte v. Bonte (1992), 616 A.2d 464 (N.H.), consd. [para. 9].

Lynch v. Lynch (1991), 25 N.S.W.L.R. 411, refd to. [para. 9].

Duval v. Séguin, [1972] 2 O.R. 686 (H.C.), affd. (1973), 1 O.R.(2d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 15, 93].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, folld. [paras. 18, 97].

Stallman v. Youngquist (1988), 531 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 37].

Hartman by Hartman v. Hartman (1991), 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.), refd to. [para. 58].

Hogan v. Hogan (1982), 435 N.E.2d 770 (Ill. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Eisele v. Tenuta (1980), 404 N.E.2d 349 (Ill. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Johnson v. Myers (1972), 277 N.E.2d 778 (Ill. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Black v. Solmitz (1979), 409 A.2d 634 (Me. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

Hamstra et al. v. British Columbia Rugby Union et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1092; 211 N.R. 89; 89 B.C.A.C. 161; 145 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 73].

Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co., [1957] 1 All E.R. 125 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 85, 98].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 87].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (U.K.), generally [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Royal Commission on New Re­productive Technologies, Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commis­sion on New Reproductive Technologies (1993), vol. 2, pp. 955, 956 [para. 32]; 964 [para. 33].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Health Reports (1995), Catalogue No. 82-003, vol. 7, No. 2, p. 12 [paras. 42, 43].

Canadian Institute for Health Information, National Trauma Registry Report -- Hospital Injury Admissions, 1995-1996 (1998), p. 57 [para. 42].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), p. 168 [paras. 9, 56].

Kerr, Ian R., Pre-Natal Fictions and Post-Partum Actions (1998), 20 Dal. L.J. 237, pp. 270, 271 [para. 60].

Santello, Deborah M., Maternal Tort Li­ability for Prenatal Injuries (1988), 22 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 747, p. 775 [para. 52].

Steinbock, Bonnie, Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Foetuses (1992), pp. 98 [para. 68]; 100 [para. 72].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Law Commission No. 60, Report on Injuries to Unborn Children, Law Commission Reports, Comnd. 5709 (1979), vol. 5, paras. 55 [para. 35]; 59, 60 [para. 67].

United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates 5th Ser., vol. 904, col. 1589 (February 6, 1976), col. 1595 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Robert L. Barnes, Q.C., and Colleen P. Keyes, for the appellant;

M. Ann MacAulay and James W.A. MacAulay, for the respondent;

Beth Symes and Andrea York, for the intervener, the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League;

David M. Brown, for the intervener, Evan­gelical Fellowship of Canada;

William J. Sammon, for the intervener, Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life.

Solicitors of Record:

Burchell, Hayman, Barnes, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant;

Bingham, Rideout, Brison and Blair, Moncton, New Brunswick, for the re­spondent;

Eberts, Symes, Street and Corbett, Toron­to, Ontario, for the intervener, the Cana­dian Abortion Rights Action League;

Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Barnes, Sammon, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life.

This appeal was heard on December 8, 1998, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.A., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on July 9, 1999, and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 82;

McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, con­curring) - see paragraphs 83 to 90;

Major, J., dissenting (Bastarache, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 91 to 134.