Accueil / Causation in Historical Sexual Abuse Cases

Causation in Historical Sexual Abuse Cases

( Disponible en anglais seulement )

mai 22, 2018 | Chris T.J. Blom

The concept of causation is difficult to grasp at the best of times, as much ink has been spilled over the years since the decision of Athey v Leonati[1] in which the court applied the “material contribution” test.

Eleven years later, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law in Hanke v. Resurfice[2] to provide that the “but for” test is to be applied unless there are special circumstances where an exception permits the use of the material contribution test.

In a historical sexual abuse claim, the plaintiff must prove that but for the abuse, he or she would not have suffered psychological harm.

If the plaintiff was abused by several assailants, each of whom had an impact on his or her life trajectory, it may be difficult to prove causation on the “but for” test. In such a case, the plaintiff need only demonstrate that the abusive conduct in issue made a material contribution to the psychological harm.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada in Clements v. Clements[3] added further clarity:

The test for showing causation is the « but for » test. The plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that « but for » the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. Inherent in the phrase « but for » is the requirement that the defendant’s negligence was necessary to bring about the injury — in other words that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant’s negligence. This is a factual inquiry. If the plaintiff does not establish this on a balance of probabilities, having regard to all the evidence, her action against the defendant fails

More recently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Sacks v. Ross[4] interpreted Clements to mean that the plaintiff must prove that there was a “real and substantial connection” between the defendant’s breach of the standard of care and the plaintiff’s injury.

No doubt the discussion of causation will continue as different cases present varying factual situations.

[1] [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458.

[2] [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333.

[3] [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181.

[4] 2017 ONCA 773.

Stay Informed

Avis de non-responsabilité

Cette publication est fournie à titre informatif uniquement. Elle peut contenir des éléments provenant d’autres sources et nous ne garantissons pas son exactitude. Cette publication n’est ni un avis ni un conseil juridique.

Miller Thomson S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. utilise vos coordonnées dans le but de vous envoyer des communications électroniques portant sur des questions juridiques, des séminaires ou des événements susceptibles de vous intéresser. Si vous avez des questions concernant nos pratiques d’information ou nos obligations en vertu de la Loi canadienne anti-pourriel, veuillez faire parvenir un courriel à privacy@millerthomson.com.

© Miller Thomson S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. Cette publication peut être reproduite et distribuée intégralement sous réserve qu’aucune modification n’y soit apportée, que ce soit dans sa forme ou son contenu. Toute autre forme de reproduction ou de distribution nécessite le consentement écrit préalable de Miller Thomson S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. qui peut être obtenu en faisant parvenir un courriel à newsletters@millerthomson.com.