Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:02:05 -0600

From: Russell Brown

Subject: James v. BC

Jason,

I agree on both issues. I've already groused about the detrimental reliance point and the use of the wills cases (which, by the way, does not appear to have been raised in either party's submissions). As to the duty issue, I think the BCCA's treatment helps show why Cooper v. Hobart should not be the last word from the SCC on duty of care, and that we are going to eventually have a re-refinement (re-re-refinement?) of Anns, particularly of Cooper's list of established categories of liability. (I believe the Province has sought leave to appeal, so we may get that re-refinement fairly soon). It is difficult to rationalize, for example, a municipality's duty of care to prospective homeowners (and now British Columbia's duty to unemployed millworkers) with the statement in Cooper that the Registrar's duty was to the public as a whole, and not to individual investors.

With best wishes,

Russ

Professor Russell Brown
Faculty of Law
University of Alberta
435 Law Centre
Edmonton, Canada T6G 2H5

tel. 1-(780) 492-1962
fax 1-(780) 492-4924

>>> Jason Neyers 6/1/2005 7:28 AM >>>

Dear Colleagues:

Just had a chance to read the BCCA case of James v. BC. Personally, I did not find the court's reasoning very persuasive on either of the main issues. First, I cannot see how the duty owed by the minister was not a duty to the public and therefore did not raise the potential conflict problems raised in Cooper. Second, I cannot agree with the courts position that detrimental reliance is not a necessary ingredient in making out a negligent provision of services case.

I would though be interested in any of your thoughts.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>