It is not clear why the court in Mackin referenced negligence and wilful blindness. We were not provided with any authority to show that either negligence or wilful blindness has been recognized as an exception to Mackin. This is not surprising since the Mackin rule deals with a public duty and not a private duty of care. Further, to expand the exceptions to include negligence would be contrary to the general principle that an action in tort does not lie against a government from the enactment of a law (see Guimond v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347, at para. 13).
"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.