Sentences with phrase «cause on the balance of probabilities»

Does the evidence as recounted in the reasons support the conclusion that the negligence was a cause on the balance of probability?

As noted be the Court in Vernon v. British Columbia (Liquor Distribution Branch) 5 the standard of proof set out in point 3 of Boulet must be restated a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in F.H. v. McDougall6 The onus is on the employer to prove just cause on the balance of probabilities, not on a higher standard.

Not exact matches

Direct effects on ecosystem balances IMO have a larger probability of causing significant harm to society.)

● Causation is established where the plaintiff proves to the civil standard on a balance of probabilities that the defendant caused or contributed to the injury.

[13] To recap, the basic rule of recovery for negligence is that the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injury on the «but for» test.

If there were an issue on the latter point, the plaintiff would have to establish, on the balance of probability, that the negligent conduct is capable of causing the injury.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

For an injury claimant to succeed under the Occupiers Liability Act, she must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlady was an occupier of the premises where and when the accident occurred, that the landlady breached a duty of care owed to the claimant that the landlady's breach caused the claimant's injury, and that the plaintiff suffered a loss.

The burden is on a claimant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the solicitor's negligence was a cause of his loss.

[39] The burden is on the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was injured in the accident that was caused by the admitted negligence of the defendant.

[31](the Plaintiff) bears the onus of proving that the condition for which she seeks compensation was on the balance of probabilities caused by the December 30th, 2002 collision.

I am not persuaded, however, on the balance of probabilities, that her condition caused by the accident injuries extended beyond the two year period initially foreseen by Dr. Down.

To succeed, however, they must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the wind project will cause:

Part V of the Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in CCD v. VIA, thereupon shifted the onus to the carriers to prove on a balance of probabilities that the obstacle was not «undue» and that offering a IPIF policy would cause them «undue hardship.»

In these circumstances, I find that Ms. Connolly has not proved on a balance of probabilities that the disc protrusion and annular tear were caused by the accident.»

However, the only «principles» that he could have been referring to are (a) those which describe the nature of the evidence that was required for a valid decision on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a factual cause and, then, (b) what test to use to decide if the evidence is sufficient on the balance of probability.

In Fisher v. Victoria Hospital, [1] the first trial in this action, the trial judge found the hospital's nurses negligent and that negligence a but - for cause of the infant's injuries on the balance of probability.

The hospital was not able to show that there was no evidence upon which a trial judge, acting properly could have found causation established on the balance of probability, so the case was sent back for a new trial, only on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a cause of the child's injury.

Between late 1996 and early 2007, Canadian tort jurisprudence formally had, at least based on an (ahem) «common sense», grammatical, ordinary, plain etc. etc. reading of Athey, an alternative method for establish factual causation (cause - in - fact) on the balance of probability.

[139] I find on a balance of probabilities that the main cause of the plaintiff's current condition, including the myoclonus, is conversion disorder.

In light of that medical evidence, WSIAT concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker's OSA was the cause of the workplace accident and, therefore, awarded the employer 100 % cost relief.

[32] Taking into account the facts that I have found based on the evidence given by the Reilander family and the expert opinions of both Dr. Matishak and Dr. Gittens, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the motor vehicle accident of July 29, 2006 caused a disc herniation at C5 / 6 on her cervical spine and that disc herniation was the principal cause of her persistent and debilitating cough...

Although the Respondent was negligent in failing to install smoke alarms, the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent's negligence caused the losses claimed.

Generally speaking, when a person commences a lawsuit as a result of their injuries, whether they result from a motor vehicle accident as in the above scenario, or by some other means like a slip and fall, the injured person is responsible for proving, on a «balance of probabilities», that the defendant negligently caused the accident which injured them.

[107] I find that Ms. Khosa, on a balance of probabilities, is and has been impaired largely due to psychological injuries caused by the accident.

I accept that the plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that the symptoms, including non-specific back pain that he currently suffers from, including disc protrusion, were caused by the first accident and the pain from those injuries was aggravated by the second accident.

Have the plaintiffs proven on a balance of probabilities that a delay in treatment caused Jordan Sacks» injuries?

Have the plaintiffs proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the delay in resulting from [this defendant's] negligence caused or contributed to the injuries of Jordan Sacks?

From the respondent's written and oral submissions at trial, it is apparent that the respondent [employer] accepted that it had the onus to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it had just cause to terminate the appellant's employment without notice or compensation in lieu of notice.

I've not spilled quite as much real ink (online is different) about the recent SCC decision in Resurfice v. Hanke which has one of those «out of the blue» pronouncements of law that had nothing to do with the disposition of the issues in case: the SCC's declaration that fault and increased risk may sometimes be enough to satisfy tort's causation requirement, even though the injured person can not establish, on the balance of probability, that the fault was a (factual) cause of the injury.

In the result, the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed as it was unable to persuade the court that, on a balance of probabilities, the cause of the disaster was defective bags.

Or, if you want to use Athey's terminology — assuming the case was argued in tort too: I can't tell from the reasons — the plaintiff failed to establish, on the balance of probability, that any defective condition of the bags was part of the cause.

Quoting Morgan J, at para. 53, the action was dismissed because the «Plaintiff has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the bags were defective and that they caused the spill.»

However, in looking at all of the evidence Justice Morgan stated that he could conclude with certainty that the Plaintiff had not proved on a balance of probabilities that the bags were defective and that they caused the spill.

Diane, under this approach, if a plaintiff can not show on a balance of probabilities that her loss was caused by a tort (on a but - for basis) she loses.

``... the tort of civil fraud has four elements, which must be proven on a balance of probabilities: (1) a false representation by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; (4) the plaintiff's actions resulted in a loss.»

The leading case on civil fraud in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and in that case civil fraud is defined this way ``... the tort of civil fraud has four elements, which must be proven on a balance of probabilities: (1) a false representation by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and (4) the plaintiff's actions resulted in a loss.»

However, because each can point the finger at the other, it is impossible for the plaintiff to show on a balance of probabilities that any one of them in fact caused her injury.

[95] The plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence caused or materially contributed to an injury.

It allows a plaintiff to satisfy the causation requirements of the cause of action without establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.

[13] Causation is established where the plaintiff proves to the civil standard on a balance of probabilities that the defendant caused or contributed to the injury: Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; McGhee v. National Coal Board, [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008 (H.L.).

is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

After a two - week trial in a medical malpractice claim, the jury found cause - in - fact [factual causation] was established on the balance of probability.

While the SCC rejected the details of the Clements analysis of Resurfice material contribution, the SCC seems to have accepted the BCCA explanation that Resurfice material contribution is not a test for factual causation but a policy — based approach that, in certain circumstances, will permit the courts to hold the caausation requirements of the cause of action have been satisfied notwithsanding that factual causation has not been established on the balance of probability.

In an action alleging delay in diagnosis and treatment, such as this one, the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the failure to diagnose the anastomotic leak in a timely fashion was a necessary cause of the unfavourable outcome for Jordan.