A NOVEL ASSAULT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NO LIABILITY FOR INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION

Abstract

The author examines a recent series of cases in the Canadian courts involving plaintiffs who sought two things: 1) establishment of the principle that emotional disturbance caused without a conscious wrongful act and without bodily contact may still be compensated; and 2) the reversal of the principle that words may be used without the user being held liable in damages. This article is concerned with the confusion engendered by the fact that just under half of the judges wrote judgments in favour of the plaintiff. Its intention is to clarify these problems and discuss the plaintiff’s argument with regard to them.