| Cooper v. Hobart |
|
Supreme Court of Canada
|
Hearing: June 20, 2001
Judgment: November 16, 2001 |
|
| Full case name: |
Mary Francis Cooper v. Robert J. Hobart and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia |
| Citations: |
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79 |
| Docket No.: |
27880 |
| Ruling: |
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
| Holding |
| A Registrar does not owe a duty of care to investors |
| Court membership |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel
|
| Reasons given |
|
Unanimous reason by: McLachlin C.J. and Major J.
|
Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79, is a Supreme Court of Canada case that redefined the Anns test adopted in Kamloops v. Nielsen to establish a duty of care in civil tort cases.
Background
Eron was a mortgage broker under the Mortgage Broker's Act. Cooper had advanced money to Eron. Eron’s mortgage license was suspended and he went out of business when it was discovered that he used money of over 6,000 investors for unauthorized purposes.
Cooper alleges that the registrar breached a duty of care that it allegedly owed to her and other investors because, it had been aware of the serious violations of the Act committed by Eron, and not suspended its license soon enough. The Registrar of Mortgage Brokers had become aware of Eron on August of 1996 and did not suspend his licence until October of 1997.
At trial the Registrar was found to have owed a duty of care to the investors. In appeal, the Court overturned the verdict on grounds that there was no sufficient proximity.
Reasoning of the Court
McLachlin and Major found that if there is no existing category that would create a duty of care, the plaintiff must show proximity, a close and direct relationship with the defendant. In this case, the statute imposes no such duty on the Registrar. While the losses to the plaintiff were foreseeable, proceeding to a policy analysis is unnecessary.
Aftermath and precedence
This case concerns pure economic loss. It is an application of the Anns-Kamloops Test.
It is notable in that it contains several factual errors-- for example attributing a famous statement in Donoghue v. Stevenson made by Lord Macmillan to Lord Atkin, calling the "neighbour principle" "the negligence principle", and omitting the critically important Winnipeg condo case from its list of important cases (in paragraph 36).
See also
External links
|
