Is it permissible to draw causation conclusions from a temporal sequence?

In White v. Stonestreet, 2006 BCSC 801 at paras. 74-75, Mr. Justice Ehrcke emphasized that it is permissible to draw causation conclusions from temporal sequence, but care must be taken: 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.” In searching for causes, a temporal connection is sometimes the only thing to go on. But if a mere temporal connection is going to form the basis for a conclusion about the cause of an event, then it is important to examine that temporal connection carefully. Just how close are the events in time? Were there other events happening around the same time, or even closer in time, that would provide an alternate, and more accurate, explanation of the true cause? This passage was referred to with approval in Madill v. Sithivong, 2012 BCCA 62 at para. 20. See also Hosseinzadeh v. Leung, 2014 BCSC 2260 at para. 67.