First, the plaintiff submits that the trial judge’s instructions failed to provide a proper instruction on causation. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the instructions did not conform to the “but for” test as set out in Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, [1997] 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235. Athey also stated that a plaintiff need not establish that the defendant’s negligence was the sole cause of the injury. The plaintiff argues that the instructions incorrectly conflated the question of causation with the assessment of damages.
"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.