Your search

Remoteness of damage in tort is nowadays a largely neglected topic among tort law jurists. Yet why this should be so is perplexing: not just because remoteness rules possess considerable theoretical and practical significance, but also because the law lacks clarity—there being several different tort remoteness rules in operation—and because the theoretical justifications that are frequently offered in support of these various rules fail to withstand rigorous analysis. This article seeks to explore these matters. In particular, it aims to expose the shortcomings of the rationales for the various remoteness rules that we have, and to advocate a way forward that would render the law simpler, clearer and more defensible.

The Supreme Court of Canada imported preexisting remoteness rules into Canadian tort law without justifying why they apply in the distinctively Canadian negligence framework endorsed in Cooper v. Hobart. This paper attempts to justify remoteness in this framework. Justifying remoteness as a standalone policy tool is unsatisfactory because it cannot explain why remoteness requires a reasonable foreseeability standard nor that remoteness operates as a fair limit on liability. Justifying remoteness in relation to the duty of care is satisfying. Remoteness supports the duty of care by allowing decision-makers to identify sufficiently general categories of duty of care that apply beyond the individual facts of the case. They can then confirm or deny liability by particularizing the risk at the remoteness stage. This ensures the framework applies as intended, adheres to decision-makers’ sense of justice, and achieves fair and socially useful results.

"This book is the second edition of our essential guide to all of the issues that Indigenous people (both offenders and victims) face in the criminal justice system. Jonathan explores the major inquiries and cases, Gladue Court and reports, sentencing circles, and a host of emerging issues. Major updates are being written for Chapters 2, 5, and 6. Jonathan will be adding a new chapter on Indigenous offenders and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD)."-- Provided by publisher

« La 33e édition du Traité général de preuve et de procédure pénales 2026 comporte plusieurs modifications ainsi que de nombreux ajouts afin d’actualiser l’exposé du droit de la preuve et de la procédure pénale. Encore une fois cette année, notre objectif d’offrir aux intervenants du système judiciaire ainsi qu’aux universitaires un vaste regard sur le droit applicable en matière de preuve et procédure pénales est atteint. En plus d’offrir une substantielle mise à jour législative et jurisprudentielle, le Traité propose cette année une profonde refonte de la section portant sur le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable prévu à l’alinéa 11b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Le Traité incorpore également les enseignements émanant des nombreux arrêts rendus par la Cour suprême du Canada en droit criminel au cours de la dernière année, notamment en ce qui concerne la preuve relative aux infractions d’ordre sexuel, le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable, l’aptitude à subir un procès, la détermination de la peine, la constitutionnalité de peines minimales, la preuve du résultat d’analyses d’échantillons d’haleine et les directives au jury. Les douze derniers mois ayant été particulièrement chargés, la Cour suprême du Canada s’est également prononcée concernant les pouvoirs d’arrestation sans mandat d’un agent de la paix, la preuve d’antécédents judiciaires, une exception au secret professionnel de l’avocat et, enfin, la manière d’apprécier la preuve testimoniale pour conclure à l’innocence ou à la culpabilité. Par souci d’efficience et de cohérence, le Traité ne s’attarde qu’aux arrêts de la Cour suprême du Canada et des cours d’appel provinciales. Afin d’assurer le travail d’édition, la date de tombée est le 31 mai de chaque année, tant pour la jurisprudence que la législation. Cette année, nous avons exceptionnellement intégré l’arrêt de la Cour suprême rendu le 5 juin 2026. Concernant la jurisprudence issue des cours d’appel provinciales, la date de tombée a légèrement été devancée afin d’assurer la publication pour la rentrée judiciaire. À l’instar des éditions antérieures, nous tenons à rappeler que bien que le Traité propose un vaste aperçu du droit en vigueur pour susciter la réflexion et inviter le lecteur à effectuer une recherche approfondie au besoin, il ne saurait apporter à lui seul une réponse exhaustive dans tous les contextes. »-- Site de l'éditeur

Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code directs sentencing judges to exercise restraint in the use of incarceration ‘with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.’ In R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted this as a remedial provision aiming to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people. That has made it appear to be a failure by its own lights. Yet to write off section 718.2(e) and the Gladue principles would be to fail properly to understand their moral foundations and structure. Judges are called upon to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people neither by working backwards from prison demographic targets nor merely by combating implicit bias. Rather, Gladue requires judges to open their minds to hitherto unappreciated reasons that many Indigenous offenders should be afforded mitigation, restorative justice, and community-based accountability. One reason, we argue, relates to the unfair criminogenic disadvantages disproportionately faced by Indigenous offenders. Another reason is that the Canadian state’s complicity in such disadvantages calls into question its legitimate authority and its standing to blame Indigenous offenders. In sum, Gladue calls upon our courts to widen the horizon of fairness in their treatment of Indigenous people. This matters for its own sake in each and every case, whether or not it brings about an appreciable reduction in Indigenous incarceration in the aggregate. Our reconstruction of Gladue not only rescues it from cynical dismissals but also helps to solve the central doctrinal puzzles surrounding it: how Indigenous offenders’ unique life circumstances must be connected to their offences to be mitigating; how Gladue principles should apply differently to more and less serious offences; how a variant of Gladue principles should be extended to members of other disadvantaged groups such as Black Canadians; and how judges should weigh the interests of Indigenous victims when sentencing Indigenous offenders.

"Justice, Indigenous Peoples, and Canada: A History of Courage and Resilience brings together the work of a number of leading researchers to provide a broad overview of criminal justice issues that Indigenous people in Canada have faced historically and continue to face today. Both Indigenous and Canadian scholars situate current issues of justice for Indigenous peoples, broadly defined, within the context of historical realities and ongoing developments. By examining how justice is defined, both from within Indigenous communities and outside of them, this volume examines the force of Constitutional reform and subsequent case law on Indigenous rights historically and in contemporary contexts. It then expands the discussion to include theoretical considerations, particularly settler-colonialism, that help explain how ongoing oppressive and assimilationist agendas continue to affect how so-called "justice" is administered. From a critical perspective, the book examines the operation of the criminal justice system, though bail, specialized courts, policing, sentencing, incarceration, and release. It explores legal frameworks as well as current issues that have significantly affected Indigenous peoples, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, human rights, resurgence and identity. This unique collection of perspectives exposes the disconcerting agenda of historical and modern-day Canadian federal government policy and the continued denial of Indigenous rights to self-determination. It is essential reading for those interested in the struggles of the Indigenous peoples in Canada as well as anyone studying race, crime and justice"-- Provided by publisher.

"Sentencing in Canada contains a unique collection of essays that explore all key aspects of sentencing. The contributors include leading academics, criminal law practitioners, and members of the judiciary, and many of the authors have extensive experience working in the areas of sentencing and parole. The volume is not simply a statement of the law -- instead, the chapters explore the wider context in which sentencing and parole decisions are taken. The volume also incorporates findings from the latest empirical research into sentencing policy and practice in Canada, including important issues such as sentencing Indigenous persons. As Mr Justice Moldaver notes in his preface, the volume "will be useful to criminal law practitioners and, more generally, to all persons interested in sentencing."-- Provided by publisher.

"This book is meant to be a clear and authoritative statement of the law with respect to the Gladue analysis for the sentencing of Indigenous offenders. We describe the book as both a "bench book" and an "implementation guide", with the specific objective of setting out all the relevant law in one place to make it easier to apply in practice. In spite of the fact that the Gladue decision was released some 20 years ago, appellate courts still end up reviewing many lower court decisions for failure to properly apply section 718.2(e) and many issues with its implementation are still evolving, such as the role played by Indigenous peoples' "traditional conceptions of justice" and the amount of detail required of Gladue reports. Overall, it is our hope that this book will lead to courts better applying section 718.2(e), which should lead to less court time spent on appealing those lower court decisions and ultimately fairer sentences that are determined more efficiently."-- Provided by publisher.