Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 279
servants. That was a subjective statement by Mr. Sewell and it is highly relevant to a consideration
now of whether the Plaintiff LPL could reasonably have relied upon the representation, information
and advice given to it by agents and employees of DIAND at that July 1997 meeting.
[1060] I agree with Mr. Sewell in general, especially in the circumstances surrounding this
representation. My review of the factors from Hercules leads me to find that it was reasonable for
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
LPL to rely upon the representation that was made to it. I also find that it was reasonably
foreseeable the LPL would rely upon this representation.
(d) Did the reliance on the representation result in damages
[1061] Causation was explained by the Supreme Court in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311. The
Court said the following at page 326:
Causation is an expression of the relationship that must be found to
exist between the tortious act of the wrongdoer and the injury to the
victim in order to justify compensation of the latter out of the pocket
of the former. Is the requirement that the plaintiff prove that the
defendant's tortious conduct caused or contributed to the plaintiff's
injury too onerous Is some lesser relationship sufficient to justify
compensation...
[1062] In Snell, the Supreme Court said that in assessing causation a court must take a robust and
pragmatic approach to the undisputed primary facts of the case. In other words, assessment of
causation requires the application of common sense to the established facts. Causation must still be
proven on the balance of probabilities.