''Cooper v Hobart'', 2001 SCC 79 is a
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...
case that redefined the "
''Anns'' test", which was adopted in ''
Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen
''Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen'', 9842 SCR 2 ("''Kamloops''") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision setting forth the criteria that must be met for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In that regard, the ''Kamloops'' ...
'' to establish a
duty of care
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be establis ...
in civil
tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable ...
cases.
Background
Eron was a
mortgage broker
A mortgage broker acts as an intermediary who brokers mortgage loans on behalf of individuals or businesses.
Traditionally, banks and other lending institutions have sold their own products. As markets for mortgages have become more competitive, ...
under the ''Mortgage Broker's Act''. Cooper had advanced money to Eron. Eron's mortgage license was suspended by Hobart acting in his official capacity as Mortgage Broker Registrar under the Act.
Cooper alleged that Hobart breached a duty of care that he allegedly owed to her and other investors because he 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 in August 1996 and did not suspend his licence until October 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 CJ and Major J 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, there was no such proximity because the statute governing the Registrar imposed no such duty. While the losses to the plaintiff were foreseeable, proceeding to a policy analysis was unnecessary.
The Court noted that even if it had gone to a policy analysis, the duty of care would be negated by policy considerations as a ruling for the plaintiff would in effect create a public insurer for investors on taxpayer dollars.
Aftermath and precedence
This case concerns pure economic loss. It is a purported application of the "''Anns''–''Kamloops'' test", however it actually adopts a new standard.
See also
*
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the appointment of Beverley McLachlin as Chief Justice of Canada to her retirement in 2017.
2000–2004
2005–2009
2010–2017
See also
* Li ...
External links
* {{lexum-scc, 2001, 79
Supreme Court of Canada cases
Canadian tort case law
2001 in Canadian case law