There is now a limited category of case in which Canadian
common law doctrine holds that a finding of fact that there is a possibility of factual causation is sufficient for that aspect of the causation requirement.
Norm Pattis responds with a question — «Does the Senate intend to attempt to repeal
the common law doctrines holding a manufacturer responsible for putting a defective product in the stream of commerce?»
Not exact matches
A
common law doctrine, which applies in Canada,
holds that in interpreting legislation, courts should presume that Parliament intended to legislate in a manner consistent with its international treaty obligations... [I] t is clear that the courts can make use of international human rights
law in interpretation.
In HL it was
held that the detention, under the
common law doctrine of necessity, of a man with autism, who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about his care and living arrangements, amounted to a violation of his rights under Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).
After canvassing judicial consideration and acceptance of CIP, as well as support for the
doctrine in a leading text on the
law of evidence, the Court of Appeal
held that there was a sufficient
common interest in the completion of the transaction in issue to find that privilege had not been waived.
In October 2004, in the so - called Bournewood case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
held that it would breach the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) for the
common law doctrine of necessity to be used to deprive an incapable person of his liberty (see HL v United Kingdom Application 45508 / 99 [2004] All ER (D) 39 (Oct)-RRB-.
It was these values that led him, as a newly - appointed judge in the 1940s, to devise a legal
doctrine which lawyers regarded as revolutionary, but which performed the elementary moral task of
holding people to their promises - something which the commercially - oriented
common law had found it expedient not to do.