Case information

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification — Pleadings — Cause of action — Torts — Negligence — Duty of care — Proximity — Strict liability — Public nuisance — Whether a defendant’s direct causation of harm should be a prerequisite to bypassing the proximity analysis in cases involving reasonably foreseeable physical harm — Whether foreseeability without more should ever be sufficient to establish a duty of care where the direct cause of physical harm is the deliberate criminal act of a third party — In what circumstances should a defendant’s conduct be characterized as an overt act for the purpose of the duty of care analysis? — Whether the doctrine of strict liability is definitively and permanently confined to a claim based on the use or misuse of real property or whether strict liability could apply to the manufacture and sale of uniquely dangerous products — With the benefit of a full evidentiary record, based on current societal norms and expectations, is it appropriate to extend the doctrine of strict liability incrementally to apply to a company that chooses to manufacture and sell a uniquely dangerous product without implementing available safety technology — Whether there are any circumstances in which a manufacturer’s decision about the design, manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of a product could give rise to a claim in public nuisance — Whether with the benefit of a full evidentiary record, based on current societal norms and expectations regarding gun violence, it is possible to conclude that a decision to design, manufacture, and/or distribute a semiautomatic handgun without available safety features unreasonably interferes with the public interest in health, safety, morality, comfort, or convenience while using public property in Canada or whether such a claim is doomed to fail.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In July 2018, a man shot 15 people on Toronto’s Danforth Avenue, killing two persons. The shooter used a stolen handgun manufactured by the applicant, Smith & Wesson Corp. The respondents are victims and their families who brought a class action against the applicant for failing to implement technology to prevent unauthorized use of the gun. At the certification stage, the motion judge bifurcated the certification motion. During the first phase, which also included a motion to strike by the defendant, the motion judge dismissed the respondents’ claims based in strict liability and public nuisance, but determined that their negligence claim satisfied the cause of action criterion for certification. During the second phase, the motion judge concluded that the respondents did not satisfy the common issues criterion and declined to certify their claim. Both parties appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the applicant and respondents from the first phase of the certification motion, but allowed the respondents’ appeal from the second phase of the certification motion and certified their claim in negligence as a class action.