Sentences with phrase «general common law duty»

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew significantly evolves the common law of contract by recognizing a general common law duty of good faith contractual performance, and... [more] Full article

[46] What is clear, however, based on s. 2 of the Act, is that there is no general common law duty of care, based on proximity principles, owed by an adjacent property owner or tenant in respect of sidewalks that abut that person's property.

Not exact matches

When it comes to health, safety and welfare of employees, school officials have a wealth of responsibilities, with Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act stating that employers have a general duty to provide a safe place of work, a safe system of work, competent fellow employees and the common law duty to ensure they take reasonable care for the safety and health of their employees.

But the trend is proceeding on a case by case basis... and has not lost sight of the established position of the common law that there is no general duty, universally imposed on all decision makers.»

However, a general lack of understanding combined with perceived information governance risks means that all too often organisations, and individuals within them, are so risk averse that they are prevented from sharing appropriately by the fear of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 («DPA»), the common law duty of confidentiality or the myriad of NHS guidance.

At common law, what was expected in these circumstances was that the attorney general would institute proceedings to uphold public rights and duties either acting ex officio or through a «relator action», ie one in which the attorney general proceeded to assert a public right on the relation of a private person or a corporation.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada recently held in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 that «It is appropriate to recognize a new common law duty that applies to all contracts as a manifestation of the general organizing principle of good faith: a duty of honest performance, which requires the parties to be honest with each other in relation to the performance of their contractual obligations.»

This is an aspect of the general no «duty to rescue» — Good Samaritan problem absent legislative intervention creating that duty (assuming the «wrongdoer» has n`t created the problem in the first place); aka the lack, in common law systems of a common law «duty of easy rescue».

On December 20, 2011, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. that the New York General Business Law article 23 - A, sections 352 - 353, also known as the «Martin Act,» does not preempt common law securities claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligenLaw article 23 - A, sections 352 - 353, also known as the «Martin Act,» does not preempt common law securities claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligenlaw securities claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence.

The court also referred to a unanimous judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in which the SCC recognized a general organizing principle of good faith contractual performance — i.e., that there is a common law duty which applies to all contracts to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations.

Stage one: does the action in question fall within the general scope of a police duty imposed by statute or recognized at common law?

In Bhasin v Hrynew (2014 SCC 71), the Supreme Court of Canada charted a new course for Canadian common law contracts, stopping just short of holding in favour of a general duty of good faith.

Although he accepted that there is no general duty to give reasons at common law (at para 51), Lord Carnwath took the view, following R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, that reasons will be required where they are necessary to permit the courts to scrutinise the underlying decision effectively:

R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3 (34914) Two stages: the court must ask whether the action falls within the general scope of a police duty imposed by statute or recognized at common law; if the answer is affirmative, the court must inquire into whether the action constitutes a justifiable exercise of powers associated with the duty.

the general duty of «good faith» discussed below) can be surprising because similar terms have been consistently rejected by the Courts as implied terms in contracts governed by common law regimes.

Under the general principles of common law, if you hire an appraiser, and there is no contractual or statutory waiver of a right to sue, you would have to show that (1) there is the standard of professional conduct applicable to the appraisal profession in preparing the appraisal that requires the use of the best available comparables (probably with an expert witness certified as an appraiser), (2) the appraiser in this case engaged in conduct that breached the standard of professional conduct applicable to appraisers, (3) this breach caused you harm that was reasonable foreseeable at the time the appraisal was prepared, and (4) that you suffered quantifiable damages that were foreseeably caused by this breach of duty.