Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2 ("Kamloops") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision setting forth the criteria that must be met for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In that regard, the Kamloops case is significant because the Supreme Court adopted the "proximity" test set out in the House of Lords decision, Anns v Merton LBC.[1] Kamloops is also significant as it articulates the "discoverability principle" in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff becomes aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence. This was later adopted and refined in Central Trust Co v Rafuse.[2] Finally, Kamloops develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.
Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen | |
---|---|
Hearing: November 22, 1982 Judgment: July 26, 1984 | |
Full case name | City of Kamloops v Jan Clemmensen Nielsen, Wesley Joseph Hughes and Gladys Annetta Hughes |
Citations | [1984] 2 SCR 2 |
Ruling | Kamloops appeal dismissed. |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin Puisne Justices: Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Wilson J, joined by Ritchie and Dickson JJ |
Dissent | McIntyre J, joined by Estey J |