However, while temporality is a consideration, its persuasiveness in determining causation should not be overstated. Courts have cautioned against over-reliance on the nature of this unpersuasive reasoning as seen in White v. Stonestreet, 2006 BCSC 801: The inference from a temporal sequence to a causal connection, however, is not always reliable. In fact, this form of reasoning so often results in false conclusions that logicians have given it a Latin name. It is sometimes referred to as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this therefore because of this.”
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.