Is there a cause of action at common law to enforce statutorily-conferred rights?

The law is clear: the general rule is there is no cause of action at common law to enforce statutorily-conferred rights. The exception arises when, on a construction of the legislation as a whole, the court concludes the legislators intended that statutorily-conferred rights can be enforced by civil action. An examination of the cases suggests that the rights are not enforced per se, that is, standing alone, but are enforced in a recognized cause of action: [citations omitted]. In The Queen in Right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205 at 222-223, the court stated that breach of a statute is evidence of negligence: The use of breach of statute as evidence of negligence as opposed to recognition of a nominate tort of statutory breach is, as Professor Fleming has put it, more intellectually acceptable. It avoids, to a certain extent, the fictitious hunt for legislative intent to create a civil cause of action which has been so criticized in England.