Not exact matches
«Earlier today at TPM Election Central, Eric Kleefeld
wrote about a scurrilous press release from the Tennessee Republican Party that used innuendo and faulty
causation to try to link Obama with anti-semitism.
Thus, there must be some aspect of the «jurisprudential aether» (JA), at least as that JA exists in Canada between Ottawa and St. John's, which explains the undeniable inconsistency between what the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly
wrote about «material contribution» in the context of proof of
causation,
about 4 years (and at least what's at least strongly implicit in what the Court
about 8 years ago) and what was
written in the recently released published reasons in Kirby.
The Court was not
writing in, nor was it deciding, a case in which it was asked to decide
about the complete «elimination of proof of
causation».
There's at least a half - dozen, maybe more, cases released since March 2007 in which the lawyers have argued
about factual
causation, and the judges have
written reasons dealing with factual
causation issues, not mentioning the SCC's decision in Resurfice v Hanke 2007 SCC 7 and clearly argued and decided based on the case law predating Resurfice.
I believe that what I've
written below is a good enough summary, for now, of what practitioners in Canada's common law jurisdictions need to know
about the effect of Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32 on the manner in which
causation is to be proved in negligence actions.
The judge was
writing about factual
causation.
I have
written, elsewhere, extensively,
about the problems in the Resurfice discussion of a factual
causation.