Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 167
[653] In Design Services v. Canada, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 737, the Supreme Court of Canada
reaffirmed the “five different categories of negligence claims for which a duty of care has been
found with respect to pure economic loss”, as recognized by Justice La Forest in Canadian National
Railway Co. v. Norsk Pacific Steamships Co., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021. These categories include the
independent liability of statutory public authorities.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[654] Justice Rothstein in Design Services found that independent liability of statutory public
authorities did not apply in that case because there was no “inspecting, granting, issuing or
enforcing something mandated by law”.
[655] In the present case, the Plaintiffs alleged negligence in the issuing of CTPs and inordinate
delay in implementing the policy to have long-term tenure. As such, I find that the present case falls
within an existing category and a detailed analysis need not be conducted.
[656] Nevertheless, after conducting a complete duty of care analysis below, I find that a duty of
care existed.
[657] The existence of a duty of care depends upon the nature of the relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant and whether that relationship is sufficiently close.
[658] This test was set out in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kamloops (City of)
v. Nielson et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, when the Supreme Court adopted the test for the liability of