Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Torts - Duty of care - Proximity - Vicarious liability - Joint liability - Negligence - Causal connection - Whether intervening act of intentional wrongdoing negates a duty of care owed by those who have assumed responsibility for the safety of others - Whether Respondents are liable for damages suffered by Appellants - Test for establishing when a national union is jointly or vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by a member of a local during a strike.

On September 18, 1992, nine miners were killed by a bomb that exploded in the Giant Mine near Yellowknife. The mine is an underground gold mine that was owned and operated by Royal Oak Ventures Inc. James O’Neil, the first person on the scene, suffered post traumatic stress disorder after seeing the harm caused by the explosion. The other Appellants are the survivors of the deceased miners. The bombing occurred during a labour strike. The victims were replacement workers hired to keep the mine operational during the strike and miners who were members of the striking local union but who had returned to work. During the strike, the striking miners resorted to escalating violence. The bomb was deliberately set by a striking miner and he was convicted on nine counts of second degree murder. The Appellants commenced actions in tort against the Respondents.

Lutz J. held that the Respondents owed a duty of care to the deceased and O’Neil to prevent the violence that was inflicted upon them. He found that the bombing was foreseeable, the Respondents were proximate, and the Respondents did not meet the standard of care expected of them. He held that no policy reasons negate a finding of a duty of care. Pinkerton’s, the Territorial government, CAW National, Royal Oak, Bettger and Seeton (an executive of the local union) appealed. Two individual defendants did not appeal. The Appellants cross-appealed on issues related to quantifying damages. Royal Oak settled and abandoned its appeals, remaining as a party only with respect to cross-claims in the Fullowka appeal. Seeton abandoned his appeal. The remaining appeals were granted, the actions were dismissed and the cross-appeals were dismissed.