Omar Ha-Redeye in the Western Journal of Legal Studies

Abstract

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 provides important guidance on the appropriate application of the material contribution test in cases of negligence. This case commentary will provide an overview of the material contribution and “but for” tests of causation, outline the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the decision, and analyze its broader implications. It is suggested that the Court has significantly clarified the law of causation, emphasizing the necessity of utilizing the new “global but for” test, while leaving room for the application of the material contribution test in (as yet to be seen) appropriate circumstances.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Clements v. Clements[1] provides important guidance on the appropriate application of the material contribution test in cases of negligence. This case commentary will provide an overview of the material contribution and “but for” tests of causation, outline the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the decision, and analyze its broader implications. It is suggested that the Court has significantly clarified the law of causation, emphasizing the necessity of utilizing the new “global but for” test, while leaving room for the application of the material contribution test in (as yet to be seen) appropriate circumstances.

Copyright © 2012 by Dr. Emir Crowne & Omar Ha-Redeye

* Dr. Emir Crowne, BA, LLB, LLM, LLM, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, and, Omar Ha-Redeye, AAS, BHA, PGCert, JD, LLM (cand.), Partner, Fleet Street Law.
But for the exceptional editorial assistance of Lida Moazzam and the material contribution of the Law Foundation of Ontario this article could not have been produced. Both are gratefully acknowledged.

[1] Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32 [Clements].