Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al., (2008) 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA)

• Judge: Costigan, Paperny and Slatter, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
• Case Date: May 22, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: (2008), 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA)

Fullowka v. Pinkerton's (2008), 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA);

      429 W.A.C. 69

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. MY.087

Pinkerton's of Canada Limited, The Government of the Northwest Territories as represented by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, Timothy Alexander Bettger (appellants/respondents by cross-appeal) v. Sheila Fullowka, Doreen Shauna Hourie, Tracey Neill, Judit Pandev, Ella May Carol Riggs, Doreen Vodnoski, Carlene Dawn Rowsell, Karen Russell, Bonnie Lou Sawler (respondents/appellants by cross-appeal) and James O'Neil (respondent/appellant by cross-appeal) and Harry Seeton, Allan Raymond Shearing and Roger Wallace Warren (respondents/respondents by cross-appeal) and Royal Oak Ventures Inc. (formerly Royal Oak Mines Inc.)

(respondent)

(A-0001-AP2005000021; 2008 NWTCA 4)

Indexed As: Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al.

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Costigan, Paperny and Slatter, JJ.A.

May 22, 2008.

Summary:

In 1992, unionized miners were engaged in a lengthy strike marred by violence, threats and intimidation after the mine owner brought in replacement workers to keep the mine operating. The union acquiesced in, or endorsed, the illegal conduct of its members. The owner retained Pinkerton's to provide security for the mine site. One striking miner (Warren) surreptitiously entered the mine at one of the 23 points of entry and placed explosives on the rail line. Nine miners were killed when their rail car struck and detonated the explosives. Three were replacement workers. Six were union members who had crossed the picket line. Warren was convicted of nine counts of second degree murder. The surviving family members of the nine miners sued for damages. The miner who first came upon the scene after the explosion (O'Neil) commenced a separate action for damages for post traumatic stress disorder. The defendants included the mine owner, Pinkerton's, the N.W.T. government, the national union and locals, local union officials, Warren and another striking miner.

The Northwest Territories Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 2004 NWTSC 66 allowed both actions. All of the defendants (except Sheridan and Hargrove) were either sufficiently proximate to the plaintiffs to qualify as "neighbours" or were "occupiers" under occupier's liability law. Accordingly, a duty of care was established. Warren's criminal act was a continuation or escalation of condoned violence and was foreseeable. There were no policy reasons negating a duty of care. The mine owner was negligent in keeping the mine open using replacement workers, when it should have known that threatened violence would lead to death or bodily harm, and in failing to bargain in good faith. Pinkerton's was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to control the violence. The N.W.T. government was liable for failing to use its powers to shut down the mine in the face of the unsafe conditions created by the threatened violence. The unions, their officers and members were liable for inciting, acquiescing in and doing nothing to stop the violence. All of the defendants materially contributed to the plaintiffs' losses. Liability was apportioned to the defendants based on their relative degree of fault. The mine owner, Pinkerton's, the N.W.T. government, the national union and two union members appealed the findings of liability and quantum against them. The plaintiffs cross-appealed the quantification of damages. The central issues were the test for causation and whether any of the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to prevent the intentional acts of another tortfeasor (Warren).

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. None of the defendants owed the plaintiffs a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent Warren's intentional criminal act.

Labour Law - Topic 2161

Unions - Legal status or capacity - General - A trial judge found that a national union and its union local were legally one entity - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that "the separate legal existence of local unions is now accepted as a reality in the labour community" - This change from the contrary position that union locals had no independent legal status, was the result of "(a) the evolution of unions as separate suable entities is based on a statutory foundation, and the statutes generally grant bargaining certificates to the locals, not the national unions. (b) local unions generally have their own executives and decision-making structures, and in accordance with the principles in Berry v. Pulley they should be recognized as separate entities. (c) locals can enter into contracts, the most significant of course being collective agreements. Those agreements should be enforceable only by and against the local, not the national union or other affiliated locals. (d) if locals and national unions are not separate entities, it would seem to follow that they have no separate rights to hold property. Not only would local and national entities be responsible for each other's obligations, it would appear that each local would be responsible for all the obligations of the other locals. This is a commercially unreasonable result." - See paragraphs 139 to 140.

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - Test for (incl. "but for" test and "material contribution" test) - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in applying the "material contribution" test for causation, rather than the "but for" test - The court stated that "in exceptional circumstances, the 'but for' test may be 'unworkable', even though evidence supports the inference that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury. If it is 'impossible' for the plaintiff to prove, due to factors outside the plaintiff's control, that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injury on a 'but for' basis, and it is clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of the kind of injury suffered by the plaintiff, then liability may be imposed, according to basic notions of fairness and justice. For example, where the limits of science make it impossible to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence was a necessary cause of injury, it may be appropriate to resort to the more easily satisfied 'material contribution' test. When interpreted in that way, the test significantly lowers the proof requirement for causation. ... Canadian trial and appellate courts have not applied the expression 'material contribution' uniformly. In some cases, courts have used the phrase in the 'conventional sense' to describe conduct that is a necessary, though not sufficient, cause of the injury. In other cases, courts have used the phrase to invoke the less stringent test of causation." - In a case such as this, where it was possible to apply the "but for" test, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to apply the less stringent "material contribution" test - See paragraphs 182 to 203.

Torts - Topic 60

Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal stated that "foreseeability incorporates the idea that the event is not only imaginable, but that there is some reasonable prospect or expectation that it will arise. ... In recognition of the problems of holding one defendant responsible for the torts of another, some cases have required an enhanced level of foreseeability in these situations. It is sometimes said that the act of the immediate tortfeasor must have been 'very likely to occur' before the law will consider it to have been foreseeable. The higher test proposed reflects the disinclination of the law to hold the ancillary tortfeasor liable for the actions of the immediate tortfeasor." - See paragraphs 53 to 54.

Torts - Topic 76

Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal defined "duty of care" as "an obligation, recognized by law, to take reasonable care to avoid conduct that entails an unreasonable risk of harm to others" - Whether a duty of care existed depended upon establishing "(i) that the harm complained of is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the alleged breach; (ii) that there is sufficient proximity between the parties that it would not be unjust or unfair to impose a duty of care on the defendants: (a) "Proximity" describes the type of relationship in which a duty of care to guard against foreseeable harm may rightly be imposed. (b) In performing the analysis the court looks at categories of relationships that have previously been recognized as creating a duty in tort, and analogies to them; and (iii) that there exist no policy reasons that would make the imposition of the duty unwise or unfair, so as to negative or otherwise restrict that duty. Since at this stage of the analysis one is generally dealing with a situation outside established categories, policy factors will play an especially important role once they are reached." - See paragraphs 47 to 48.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - Unionized miners were engaged in a lengthy strike marred by violence, threats and intimidation after the mine owner brought in replacement workers - The union acquiesced in or endorsed illegal conduct of its members - The owner retained Pinkerton's to provide security - One striking miner (Warren) surreptitiously entered the mine and placed explosives which subsequently killed nine miners - Warren was convicted of murder - The surviving family members of the nine miners sued for damages - The miner who first came upon the scene after the explosion (O'Neil) commenced a separate action for damages for post traumatic stress disorder - The defendants included the mine owner, Pinkerton's, the N.W.T. government, the national union and locals, local union officials, Warren and another striking miner - The trial judge found all of the defendants, as ancillary tortfeasors, liable for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable tort by Warren - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal held that none of the defendants owed the plaintiffs a duty of care - The court stated that "the traditions of the common law are inconsistent with any general rule that one person is liable for the torts of another; liability is exceptional. ... Simply being able to foresee the torts of another is not enough. Liability is exceptionally found to exist when there is a 'special relationship' between the plaintiff and the ancillary tortfeasor, or where the ancillary tortfeasor has some control over the immediate tortfeasor. There are potentially three relationships in these appeals that might be "special" enough to support a duty of the [defendants] to be responsible for the torts of Warren: employer and employee, regulator and worker, and occupier and invitee. None is sufficient. The existence of the strike and the resulting violence were notorious, as were the frequent trespasses onto the mine property; the [defendants] had no superior knowledge of these risks. The deceased miners were not particularly vulnerable or dependant on the [defendants] for protection; they could have exercised their autonomy and withdrawn from the danger at any time. As 'competent people' they had 'the right to engage in risky activities'. While these relationships are sufficient to create 'proximity' with respect to some risks, they do not extend far enough to qualify as a 'special relationship' in this context. The second potential source of a duty is control. None of the [defendants] had any legal right to control Warren. None of them had control of him in fact ... Arguments that the [defendants] could have 'controlled the risk' by closing the mine assume an obligation to cease engaging in a lawful activity in order to eliminate all risk of injury. Absent any special relationship or control, there is no basis on these facts to find a general duty of care on any of the [defendants] to answer for Warren's intentional tort." - See paragraphs 35 to 100.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal stated that "it is difficult to find in the case law a unified test to use in determining if one person (the ancillary torfeasor) has a duty in tort to prevent the torts of another (the immediate tortfeasor). The analysis of foreseeability, proximity, and residual policy considerations does not yield a clear answer. There is no readily discernable pattern in the previously identified categories where one defendant has been found liable for failing to prevent the tort of another. The issue arises in relatively few cases, and few courts have attempted to set out the general principles to be followed. Two themes however emerge from the cases finding an ancillary tortfeasor liable for the torts of others: a special relationship with the plaintiff, or an element of control over the immediate tortfeasor. ... One can therefore say that in most (if not all) cases where one defendant (the ancillary tortfeasor) is held to owe a duty to prevent the tort of another defendant (the immediate tortfeasor), there is either a special relationship between the ancillary tortfeasor and the plaintiff, or an element of control by the ancillary tortfeasor over the immediate tortfeasor, or some combination of the two. ... While there appears to be no comprehensive statement of what type of 'special relationship' between the ancillary tortfeasor and the plaintiff will support a duty to prevent the torts of others, it logically requires more than the mere 'proximity' that will otherwise support a duty in tort. If mere proximity were a 'special relationship', then liability for the torts of others would not be a special category. The 'special relationship' contemplates something more, where the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable and dependent on the ancillary tortfeasor for protection from the immediate tortfeasor." - See paragraphs 91, 94, 95.

Torts - Topic 79

Negligence - Duty of care - Factors limiting or reducing scope of duty of care - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal referred to policy considerations that would negate a prima facie duty of care: "(a) It is contrary to the principle of individual autonomy that underlies the common law. (b) It is contrary to the general principle that tort liability is personal, and that some exceptional reason should be shown for making one person responsible for the torts of another. (c) It is unfair to hold one person responsible for the acts of someone else that they do not control. Deterrence of unsafe conduct is one objective of tort law, but liability without control cannot enhance safety in any meaningful way. Control of the immediate tortfeasor is therefore a key consideration. (d) It undermines the general principle that tort liability is fault based, in those cases where the immediate tortfeasor has deliberately evaded the efforts of the ancillary tortfeasor. (e) It is contrary to the general principle that a person has no duty to intervene just because he or she is aware that the plaintiff is exposed to a risk. Some principled exception must be identified to warrant imposing a duty. (f) Historically, the courts have been reluctant to impose liability for a failure by an individual to take some positive action. Even the definition of 'duty' is to 'avoid conduct', not to 'take action'. Preventing the intentional act of another person will generally require a positive act. (g) It undermines the responsibility of the immediate tortfeasor for his crime, which is contrary to public policy." - See paragraph 78.

Torts - Topic 2653

Vicarious liability - Particular persons - Unions - At issue was whether the union/union member relationship gave rise to vicarious liability on the part of the union for tortious conduct by the union member, as opposed to its officers and employees - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal stated that "the relationship between a member and his or her union is not characterized by the level of control, unity of purpose and proximity needed to general vicarious liability. Unions are not vicariously liable for the acts of their members per se. However, if a member of the union were given some specific task to do on behalf of the union, and during the course of and within the scope of that assignment the union member committed a tort, then the union could be vicariously liable. The fact that the actor was a member of the union is, however, irrelevant. ... The true issue is whether the member in question committed a tort in the scope of some specific duty assigned to that member on behalf of the union." - Further, the mere provision of financial and moral support, or advice, by a national union to one of its local unions did not give rise to vicarious liability - Inciting a union member to commit a tort would create direct liability, but not vicarious liability - However, nothing was done by the national union or union local to incite, assist or enable Warren to commit his crime - See paragraphs 148, 155.

Torts - Topic 3508

Occupiers' liability or negligence for dangerous premises - General principles - Liability of occupier for acts of third party - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal stated that "generally speaking, absent some element of control, some special relationship between the occupier and the plaintiff, or some exceptional factor, the duty of the occupier does not extend to preventing the intentional criminal acts of persons on the premises" - See paragraph 114.

Torts - Topic 3551

Occupiers' liability or negligence for dangerous premises - Occupier and premises defined - Occupier defined - Unionized miners were engaged in a lengthy strike marred by violence, threats and intimidation after the mine owner brought in replacement workers - The owner retained Pinkerton's to provide security - One striking miner (Warren) surreptitiously entered the mine and placed explosives which subsequently killed nine miners - The surviving family members of the nine miners sued for damages - The miner who first came upon the scene after the explosion (O'Neil) commenced a separate action for damages for post traumatic stress disorder - The trial judge found that the mine owner and Pinkerton's were co-occupiers - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal disagreed - Although co-occupiers were possible, each had to be acting in their own right - One could not be the agent of the other - The court stated that "Pinkerton's had no property interest in the mine, no separate mandate about the premises, and no occupation or control other than as the agent of [the owner]. Pinkerton's presence on the land was totally derivative of the possession of its principal. Pinkerton's was not an occupier. Any duty owed by Pinkerton's must be derived from an application of the Cooper test, and not simply by labelling it an 'occupier'" - Pinkerton's contractual duty to secure the mine was owed only to the owner - Even if Pinkerton was an "occupier", the restricted control it exercised over the premises limited any duty of care it owed and Pinkerton's met that standard of care in its efforts to keep trespassers out of the mine - Pinkerton's "assurances" of safety at the mine site did not constitute an "assumption of liability" for the safety of everyone on the premises - See paragraphs 103 to 122.

Torts - Topic 8901

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Control of conduct of others - General - [See both Torts - Topic 77 ].

Torts - Topic 9158

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Safety inspection authorities - Unionized miners were engaged in a lengthy strike marred by violence, threats and intimidation after the mine owner brought in replacement workers - One striking miner (Warren) surreptitiously entered the mine and placed explosives which subsequently killed nine miners - The plaintiff surviving family members of the nine miners sued for damages - The plaintiffs submitted that the government, through its mining inspectors, owed them a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to shut down the mine in the face of an unreasonable risk of violence - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal held that the government's statutory duty under the Mining Safety Act to ensure mine safety did not fix its mining inspectors with a parallel duty in tort to reduce the risk of intentional criminal conduct at the mine - The Act was concerned with accidents and workplace safety and not with labour relations, crime prevention or criminal acts - Even if the government owed the miners a prima facie duty of care in respect of Warren's intentional tort, policy reasons negated that prima face duty to protect them from the intentional criminal acts of a third person - The court stated that the government "did not owe a private law duty of care to prevent the intentional criminal conduct of Warren. Whatever duties arise under the statute, they do not extend to preventing criminal acts, nor to labour relations issues. In any event, the record does not disclose any negligent conduct by the mining inspectors." - See paragraphs 123 to 132.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Shearing, [1993] N.W.T.R. 270 (C.A), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

R. v. Bettger and Shearing, [1996] N.W.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

R. v. Warren, [1998] N.W.T.R. 190; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] 1 S.C.R. xv; 228 N.R. 196, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 47].

R. v. Warren, [1995] N.W.T.J. No. 22 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 47].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 55].

Galaske v. O'Donnell et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670; 166 N.R. 5; 43 B.C.A.C. 37; 69 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 57].

Holtslag v. Alberta (2006), 380 A.R. 133; 363 W.A.C. 133; 55 Alta. L.R.(4th) 214; 2006 ABCA 51, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 57].

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

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; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 61].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 11; 2000 ABCA 122, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 65].

Tottrup v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection) - see Tottrup v. Lund et al.

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 27; 2000 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 65].

National Harbours Board v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60; 2 D.L.R.(3d) 81, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 65].

Bank of British Columbia v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., [1992] 3 W.W.R. 183; 64 B.C.L.R.(2d) 166; 10 B.C.A.C. 260; 21 W.A.C. 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 65].

Weld-Blundell v. Stephens, [1920] A.C. 956, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

P. Perl (Exporters) v. Camden London Borough Council, [1984] Q.B. 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

Smith et al. v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd., [1987] A.C. 241; 73 N.R. 99 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

Graves v. Warner Bros. (2002), 253 Mich. App. 486; 656 N.W.2d 195, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

James v. Meow Media Inc. (2000), 90 F. Supp.2d 798 (W.D. Ky.), affd. (2002), 300 F.3d 683; 2002 FED App. 0270P (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Anzil, [2000] HCA 61; 205 C.L.R. 254, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66].

Smith v. Leurs (1945), 70 C.L.R. 256 (H.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 67].

Ship Koursk, Re, [1924] P. 140; [1924] All E.R. Rep. 168, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 68].

Martin v. Martin et al. (1996), 176 N.B.R.(2d) 178; 447 A.P.R. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 68].

Mainland Sawmills Ltd. et al. v. IWA - Canada, Local 1-3567 Society et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. F36; 62 C.C.E.L.(3d) 66; 2007 BCSC 1433, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 68].

Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830; [1952] 1 D.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 69].

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 69].

Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. et al., [2003] 1 A.C. 32; 293 N.R. 1; [2002] UKHL 22, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 69].

Raywalt Construction Co. v. Bencic et al. (2005), 386 A.R. 230; 58 Alta. L.R.(4th) 266; 2005 ABQB 989, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 69].

Thorpe v. Brumfitt (1873), 8 Ch. App. 650, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 70].

Hutchings v. Dow et al. (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 139; 393 W.A.C. 139; 66 B.C.L.R.(4th) 78; 2007 BCCA 148, leave to appeal refused (2007), 379 N.R. 391; [2007] 3 S.C.R. ix, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 71].

Stewart v. Pettie et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 131; 177 N.R. 297; 162 A.R. 241; 83 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 73].

Lamb v. Camden London Borough Council, [1981] Q.B. 625 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 74].

Jones v. Shafer Estate, [1948] S.C.R. 166, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 74].

Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office, [1970] A.C. 1004, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 78].

Stansbie v. Troman, [1948] 2 K.B. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 80].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 81].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 82].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 84].

Childs v. Desormeaux et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 643; 347 N.R. 328; 210 O.A.C. 315; 2006 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 87].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 88].

Stovin v. Wise - see Stoven et al. v. Norfolk County Council.

Stoven et al. v. Norfolk County Council, [1996] A.C. 923; 202 N.R. 290 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 88].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 92].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 2 A.C. 605; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 105].

J.D. v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust et al., [2005] 2 A.C. 373; 337 N.R. 74; [2005] UKHL 23, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 105].

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; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 106].

Yeu v. Hong Kong (Attorney General), [1988] A.C. 175; 82 N.R. 321 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 106].

Rogers et al. v. Faught et al. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 79; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 107].

Burgess v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 411; 85 O.R.(3d) 798 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2007] 1 S.C.R. vii; 364 N.R. 400; 229 O.A.C. 400, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 107].

Street v. Ontario Racing Commission et al. (2008), 232 O.A.C. 346; 88 O.R.(3d) 563; 2008 ONCA 10, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 107].

Devloo v. Canada (1991), 129 N.R. 39 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 108].

Finney v. Barreau du Québec - see McCullock-Finney v. Barreau du Québec.

McCullock-Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 109].

McClelland et al. v. Stewart et al. (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 150; 333 W.A.C. 150; 31 B.C.L.R.(4th) 203; 2004 BCCA 458, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 110].

Swanson and Peever v. Canada, [1992] 1 F.C. 408; 124 N.R. 218; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 741 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 111].

Guitare v. Canada (2002), 224 F.T.R. 272; 2002 FCT 1170 (Protho.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

Miclash v. Canada (2003), 227 F.T.R. 116; 2003 FCT 113 (Protho.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

McLellan et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 382 A.R. 287; 2005 ABQB 486, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

Williams et al. v. St. John (City), New Brunswick and Chubb Industries Ltd. (1985), 66 N.B.R.(2d) 10; 169 A.P.R. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

Pete v. Axworthy et al. (2005), 216 B.C.A.C. 217; 356 W.A.C. 217; 45 B.C.L.R.(4th) 311; 2005 BCCA 449, leave to appeal refused [2006] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 351 N.R. 199; 231 B.C.A.C. 319; 381 W.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

Wiebe v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 212 Man.R.(2d) 99; 389 W.A.C. 99; 2006 MBCA 159, leave to appeal refused [2007] 1 S.C.R. xvi; 371 N.R. 398; 228 Man.R.(2d) 236; 427 W.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 113].

Toews and Snesar v. MacKenzie, [1980] 4 W.W.R. 108; 18 B.C.L.R. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 115].

J.S. v. Clement (1995), 22 O.R.(3d) 495; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 117].

Swan v. South Australia (1994), 62 S.A.S.R. 532, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 118].

Lawson v. Wellesley Hospital, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 893; 15 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 119].

C.L.C. v. Lions Gate Hospital - see Collins v. Lions Gate Hospital.

Collins v. Lions Gate Hospital, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1505; 95 B.C.L.R.(3d) 347; 2001 BCSC 1505, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 119].

Robertson v. Adigbite et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 566; 2 C.C.L.T.(3d) 120; 2000 BCSC 1189, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 119].

Wenden v. Trikha et al. (1991), 116 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), affd. (1993), 135 A.R. 382; 33 W.A.C. 382 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 3 S.C.R. ix; 159 N.R. 80; 149 A.R. 160; 63 W.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 120].

Ahmed v. Stefaniu (2006), 216 O.A.C. 323; 275 D.L.R.(4th) 101 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2007] 1 S.C.R. xv; 368 N.R. 400; 233 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 120].

Kendal v. Board of Education of St. Paul's Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 20 (2004), 249 Sask.R. 229; 325 W.A.C. 229; 25 C.C.L.T.(3d) 25; 2004 SKCA 86, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 121].

Shannon v. T.W. (Litigation Guardian of), [2002] C.I.L.R. G-1570 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 122].

Snaak v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2002), 158 O.A.C. 72; 61 O.R.(3d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 122].

Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis, [1955] A.C. 549, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 122].

Yelle v. Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton et al., [2002] O.T.C. 627; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 168 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 123].

Calliou Estate v. Calliou Estate et al. (2002), 306 A.R. 322; 99 Alta. L.R.(3d) 390; 2002 ABQB 68, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 125].

Hunt v. Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc. et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 186; 60 O.R.(3d) 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 25].

Tong v. Bedwell, [2002] 6 W.W.R. 327; 311 A.R. 174; 2002 ABQB 213, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 126].

Campiou Estate et al. v. Gladue et al., [2003] 4 W.W.R. 536; 332 A.R. 109; 2002 ABQB 1037 (Master), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 126].

Moore v. Fanning (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 225; 41 C.C.L.T. 67 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 126].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Swift Current No. 137 (Rural Municipality) and Ens (1991), 88 Sask.R. 281 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 126].

Okanagan Exteriors Inc. et al. v. Perth Developments Inc. et al. (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 68; 267 W.A.C. 68; 98 B.C.L.R.(3d) 274; 2002 BCCA 45, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 127].

Truong v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (2001), 211 Sask.R. 115; 2001 SKQB 419, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 128].

Q. v. Minto Management Ltd. (1985), 49 O.R.(2d) 531 (H.C.), affd. (1986), 57 O.R.(2d) 781 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 129].

Allison v. Rank City Wall Canada Ltd. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 141; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 144 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 130].

McGinty v. Cook (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 650; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 94 (H.C.), affd. (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 131].

Dufault et al. v. Excelsior Mortgage Corp. et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 177; 14 Alta. L.R.(4th) 343 (Q.B.), affd. (2003), 327 A.R. 303; 296 W.A.C. 303; 20 Alta. L.R.(4th) 220; 2003 ABCA 147, leave to appeal refused [2003] 3 S.C.R. vi; 327 N.R. 393; 361 A.R. 199; 339 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 132].

Johnson v. Webb et al., [2003] 1 W.W.R. 415; 170 Man.R.(2d) 58; 285 W.A.C. 58; 2002 MBCA 159, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 133].

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Anzil (2000), 176 A.L.R. 411 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 134].

E.D.G. v. Hammer et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 459; 310 N.R. 1; 187 B.C.A.C. 193; 307 W.A.C. 193; 2003 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 135].

Ortega v. 1005640 Ontario Inc. et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 281 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] 1 S.C.R. xiv; 339 N.R. 200; 206 O.A.C. 400, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 136].

X. v. R.D.M. (2003), 370 N.R. 365; 250 B.C.A.C. 3; 416 W.A.C. 3; 53 C.C.L.T.(3d) 161; 2008 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 152].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 152].

Clunis v. Camden and Islington Health Authority, [1998] Q.B. 978 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 152].

Jane Doe v. Board of Police Commissioners of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 161; 74 O.R.(2d) 225; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 580 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 1 O.R.(3d) 416 (C.A.), dist. [para. 83, footnote 153].

B.M. - see Mooney v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

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; 2004 BCCA 402, leave to appeal refused [2005] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 337 N.R. 195; 220 B.C.A.C. 318; 362 W.A.C. 318, dist. [para. 84, footnote 156].

Air India Flight 182 Disaster Claimants v. Air India (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 130 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 157].

A.R. v. Lord Saville of Newdigate, [2001] EWCA Civ 2048; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1249, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 163].

Leichhardt Municipal Coucil v. Montgomery, [2007] HCA 6; 233 A.L.R. 200, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 168].

L.A.J. v. H.J. (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 306; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 177 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169].

K.K. v. K.W.G., [2006] O.T.C. 609; 40 C.C.L.T.(3d) 139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169].

M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136; 88 O.R.(3d) 1; 2007 ONCA 804, refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169].

X. v. Bedfordshire County Council - see P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council.

P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633; 185 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169].

Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - see Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.

Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 A.C. 310; 131 N.R. 194 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 173].

White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al., [1999] 2 A.C. 455; 234 N.R. 121; [1998] UKHL 45, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 173].

Joudrey v. Swissair Transport Co. (2004), 225 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 713 A.P.R. 156; 2004 NSSC 130, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 174].

Slater v. Clay Cross Co., [1956] 2 Q.B. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 178].

Preston v. Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, Kingsway Branch No. 175 and Edmonton (City) (1981), 29 A.R. 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 178].

Veinot v. Kerr-Addison Mines Ltd., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 311; 3 N.R. 94, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 179].

Stacey v. Anglican Churches of Canada (1999), 182 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 554 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 108, footnote 180].

Wheat v. Lacon (E.) & Co., [1966] A.C. 552, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 180].

Bennett v. Kailua Estates Ltd. et al. (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 228; 142 W.A.C. 228; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 281; 32 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 183].

London Drugs v. Kuehne & Nagle - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 111, footnote 188].

Goldberg v. Housing Authority of the City of Newark (1962), 186 A.2d 291 (N.J.S.C.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 190].

Hill Estate v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1989] A.C. 53; 102 N.R. 241 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 191].

Cross v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services (1980), 82 Ill.2d 313; 412 N.E.2d 472 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 116, footnote 197].

McGauley v. British Columbia, [1990] B.C.T.C. Uned. 489; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 217 (S.C.), revd. (1991), 56 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118, footnote 200].

Dubé v. Labar, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 649; 68 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 200].

Murray v. Bitango (1996), 184 A.R. 68; 122 W.A.C. 68; 38 Alta. L.R.(3d) 408 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1996] 3 S.C.R. vi; 206 N.R. 160; 196 A.R. 160; 141 W.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 201].

Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D. - see B.D. et al. v. Children's Aid Society of Halton Region et al.

B.D. et al. v. Children's Aid Society of Halton Region et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; 365 N.R. 302; 227 O.A.C. 161; 2007 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 204].

Gorris v. Scott (1874), L.R. 9 Ex. 125, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 206].

Klein v. American Medical Systems Inc. et al. (2006), 219 O.A.C. 49; 84 O.R.(3d) 217 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 127, footnote 209].

Fullowka v. Slezak, 2002 NWTSC 23, refd to. [para. 136, footnote 222].

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22, refd to. [para. 137, footnote 223].

Civil Services Association of Alberta v. Farran - see Civil Services Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Minister of Education) and Boesen.

Civil Services Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Minister of Education) and Boesen (1976), 2 A.R. 43; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 224].

Berry et al. v. Pulley et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493; 287 N.R. 303; 158 O.A.C. 329; 2002 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 138, footnote 225].

Maritime Employers' Association et al. v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 273 et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 120; 23 N.R. 386; 23 N.B.R.(2d) 458; 44 A.P.R. 458, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 226].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local 1338 v. Bradley et al. (1999), 174 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 104; 533 A.P.R. 104 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 227].

Labourers' International Union of North America v. Penegal Trim & Supply Ltd., [1998] O.L.R.D. No. 3834, refd to. [para. 140, footnote 228].

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

G.T.-J. et al. v. Griffiths et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570; 241 N.R. 201; 124 B.C.A.C. 161; 203 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983; 274 N.R. 366; 150 O.A.C. 12; 2001 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

K.L.B. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403; 309 N.R. 306; 187 B.C.A.C. 42; 307 W.A.C. 42; 2003 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

John Doe v. Bennett et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436; 318 N.R. 146; 236 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 215; 700 A.P.R. 215; 2004 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

E.B. v. Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (B.C.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 45; 340 N.R. 202; 217 B.C.A.C. 1; 358 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 232].

Leroux v. Molgat (1985), 67 B.C.L.R. 29, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 240].

Matusiak et al. v. British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council et al. (1999), 22 B.C.T.C. 193 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 241].

Denham v. Midland Employers Mutual Assurance LD., [1955] 2 Q.B. 437, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 246].

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd., [1947] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 247].

Hardisty v. 851791 N.W.T. Ltd. et al., [2006] 4 W.W.R. 199; 2005 NWTCA 4, affing. [2003] Northwest Terr. Cases 70; [2005] 5 W.W.R. 334; 2004 NWTSC 70, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 247].

Credit Lyonnais Nederland N.V. v. Export Credits Guarantee Department, [2000] 1 A.C. 486; 239 N.R. 380 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 161, footnote 251].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 164, footnote 255].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 182, footnote 282].

Walker Estate et al. v. York Finch General Hospital et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 647; 268 N.R. 68; 145 O.A.C. 302; 2001 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 196, footnote 303].

B.S.A. Investors Ltd. et al. v. Mosly et al. (2007), 242 B.C.A.C. 217; 400 W.A.C. 217; 283 D.L.R.(4th) 220; 2007 BCCA 94, refd to. [para. 196, footnote 303].

Myers v. Peel County Board of Education and Jowett, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 21; 37 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 197, footnote 305].

Bonnington Castings Ltd. v. Wardlaw, [1956] A.C. 613, refd to. [para. 197, footnote 305].

McGhee v. National Coal Board, [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 197, footnote 305].

St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 200, footnote 307].

Meyers v. Stanley et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 262; 343 W.A.C. 262; 2005 ABCA 114, leave to appeal refused [2005] 2 S.C.R. ix; 348 N.R. 198; 401 A.R. 396; 391 W.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 200, footnote 307].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dietrich, Joachim, Liability in Negligence for Harm Resulting from Third Parties' Criminal Acts: Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Anzil (2001), 9 Torts L.J. 152, pp. 161, 162, 163 [para. 94, footnote 167].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 168 [para. 94, footnote 167].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, Non-vicarious Liability for the Acts of Others (1997), 5 Tort L. Rev. 102, generally [para. 91, footnote 166]; p. 116 [para. 78, footnote 150].

Hall, M.I., Duty to Protect, Duty to Control, and the Duty to Warn (2003), 82 Can. Bar Rev. 645, pp. 646, 647 [para. 94, footnote 167]; 658, 659 [para. 96, footnote 169].

Hart, H.L.A., and Honoré, Tony, Causation in the Law (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 196, 197 [para. 36, footnote 66].

Klar, Lewis N., Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D.: Looking for Proximity within Statutory Provisions (2007), 86 Can. Bar Rev. 337, p. 340 [para. 131, footnote 218].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (3rd Ed. 2003), pp. 389, 390 [para. 193, footnote 298]; 396 [para. 197, footnote 304]; 439 [paras. 36, 44, 78, 97, footnotes 66, 77, 146, 148, 171]; 440 [paras. 78, 97, footnotes 146, 148, 171]; 441 [paras. 78, 97, footnotes 148, 171].

McIvor, C., Third Party Liability in Tort (2006), generally [para. 41, footnote 72]; pp. 1 [para. 91, footnote 166]; 9 ff. [para. 78, footnote 150]; 19 [para. 45, footnote 79]; 25 [para. 68, footnote 122]; 99 [para. 127, footnote 209]; 131, 132 [para. 64, footnote 113]; 133, 134 [para. 67, footnote 119].

Siebrasse, N., Liability of Public Authorities and Duties of Affirmative Action (2007), 57 U.N.B.L.J. 84, generally [para. 127, footnote 209].

Counsel:

J.M. Hope, Q.C., and M. Atwal, for Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd.;

P.D. Gibson and C.J. Pratt, for the Government of the Northwest Territories as represented by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories;

L.S.R. Kanee, P. Nugent and S.M. Barrett, for the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada;

S.L. Polsky and H.A. Sanderson, for Timothy Alexander Bettger;

J.P. Warner, Q.C., J.B Champion, Q.C., and W.B. Russell, for Sheila Fullowka, Doreen Shauna Hourie, Tracey Neill, Judit Pandev, Ella May Carol Riggs, Doreen Vodnoski, Carlene Dawn Rowsell, Karen Russell, Bonnie Lou Sawler;

J.E. Redmond, Q.C., for James O'Neil;

R.G. McBean, Q.C., and D.P. Wedge, for Royal Oak Ventures Inc. (formerly Royal Oak Mines Inc.).

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on October 15-16, 2007, at Yellowknife, N.W.T., before Costigan, Paperny and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal.

On May 22, 2008, the following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the Court.