[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by troutman

Recent Alberta Court of Appeal Decision Confuses our Understanding of an Occupier’s Duty of Care
Historical Development of Occupiers’ Liability in Canada
Recent Trends in Alberta Case Law


http://www.rmc-agr.com/recent-albert...-duty-of-care/

Good article, and it is the pre-Christensen case where I was coming from in my earlier post on duty of care. To me, this is still sound reasoning:

As set out by Wood, just because there is a foreseeable risk, this does not automatically make the occupier liable. As stated correctly in the dissenting judgment, in “order to succeed, the plaintiffs… would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that a duty was owed to them by the City and having breached the appropriate standard of care, the City’s substandard actions caused the plaintiff’s… the damages complained of” (para. 35). To do away with these requirements is akin to imposing a standard of strict liability, or in other words, deem the occupier an insurer of the visitor, which is not the law in Canada.