What is the test for using the word "but for" in an instruction to a jury in a personal injury case?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Ross v. Bacchus, 2015 ONCA 347 (CanLII):
Counsel for the appellant submits that the instruction is inconsistent with the language used in Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181, at para. 46. Counsel argues that the trial judge was required to use the phrase “but for” in explaining causation to the jury.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the legal test for disbursements of personal injury compensation in personal injury cases? (Ontario, Canada)
How have the courts in Canada dealt with the issue of personal injury cases involving personal injury claims? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on personal injury representation in personal injury cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for obtaining personal information of a plaintiff in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law in the context of personal injury cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the fiduciary duties owed to a person in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a motion to add as parties to a personal injury action for personal injury costs granted? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the reasons used by a deputy judge to determine whether a party has been found in default in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the relevant case law for giving evidence from a third party witness in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
What personal details have been disclosed in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
