Cooper v. Hobart
| Cooper v. Hobart | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: June 20, 2001 Judgment: November 16, 2001 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| A Registrar does not owe a duty of care to investors | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Unanimous reason by: McLachlin C.J. and Major J. |
|||||||||
Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79, is a Supreme Court of Canada case that redefined the Anns test adopted in Kamloops v. Nielsen to establish a duty of care in civil tort cases.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Eron was a mortgage broker 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 alleges 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 on 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.
[edit] Reasoning of the Court
McLachlin and Major 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, the statute imposes no such duty on the Registrar. While the losses to the plaintiff were foreseeable, proceeding to a policy analysis is unnecessary.
[edit] Aftermath and precedence
This case concerns pure economic loss. It is an application of the Anns-Kamloops Test.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
