Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 226
law, which is to restore the plaintiff to the position he or she would
have enjoyed but for the negligence of the defendant.
(Emphasis in original)
[856] In Athey at para. 14, the Court held that “[t]he general, but not conclusive, test for causation
is the "but for" test, which requires the plaintiff to show that the injury would not have occurred but
for the negligence of the defendant…”
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[857] In the result, it is sufficient for me to determine that the Defendant’s negligence was a
substantial cause. It is not necessary that the Defendant be the only cause. If but for the Defendant’s
negligence, the Plaintiffs would not have been harmed, liability for that negligence will flow. As I
have previously discussed, the harm in this case was the expectation losses that occurred when the
mill closed due to the lack of timber supply.
[858] I have found that there were numerous breaches of the standard of care from which
reasonably foreseeable harm flowed. In my opinion, they all equate to negligence that resulted in an
inadequate supply of timber being available to the mill. It is the inadequate supply of timber that
caused the closure of the mill.
[859] I find that if the Defendant had adequately met the standard of care, the Plaintiffs’ mill
would not have closed. There would have been timber in the yard and products coming off the line.