Last Updated: August 22 2026
How do foreseeability and remoteness principles affect liability in an Ontario negligence claim?
Bulat Paralegal Service explains that foreseeability in negligence means an objective reasonable person in the defendant’s position ought to have anticipated a real risk of harm from the conduct, assessed before the incident rather than with hindsight (for example, Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587; Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114). Remoteness addresses whether the harm is too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to fairly hold the defendant liable, often using the “foresight of the reasonable man” and a “real risk” approach rather than mere possibility (for example, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty., [1967] A.C. 617 (P.C.)). If you want practical help framing these issues for your case in Ontario, contact Bulat Paralegal Service at (705) 664-0334 to speak with a paralegal about your next steps.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
What Is Meant By Foreseeability and Remoteness Principles Within a Negligence Case?
Foreseeability Refers to Whether a Harm Resulting From Certain Conduct Could Reasonably Be Foreseen As a Possibility.
Note: Please contact Bulat Paralegal Service by phone at: (705) 664-0334 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding Reasonable Foreseeability Including Remoteness Principles Regarding Risk of Causing Harm
In negligence law, the principle of reasonable foreseeability applies. Simply put, reasonable foreseeability means the common sense thinking ahead and understanding of what might happen as a result of certain conduct. As the core definition of negligence involves the failure to do, or avoid doing, what a reasonably acting person who do, or would avoid doing, an understanding of what a reasonably acting person might perceive as posing a risk is required.
The Law
Within the Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587, and Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, cases, the Supreme Court explained the concept of reasonable foreseeability whereas it was said:
[53] Whether or not something is “reasonably foreseeable” is an objective test. The analysis is focussed on whether someone in the defendant’s position ought reasonably to have foreseen the harm rather than whether the specific defendant did. Courts should be vigilant in ensuring that the analysis is not clouded by the fact that the event in question actually did occur. The question is properly focussed on whether foreseeability was present prior to the incident occurring and not with the aid of 20/20 hindsight: L. N. Klar and C.S.G. Jefferies, Tort Law (6th ed. 2017), at p. 212.
[12] The remoteness inquiry asks whether “the harm [is] too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable” (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 360). Since The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the principle has been that “it is the foresight of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C.), at p. 424).
[13] Much has been written on how probable or likely a harm needs to be in order to be considered reasonably foreseeable. The parties raise the question of whether a reasonably foreseeable harm is one whose occurrence is probable or merely possible. In my view, these terms are misleading. Any harm which has actually occurred is “possible”; it is therefore clear that possibility alone does not provide a meaningful standard for the application of reasonable foreseeability. The degree of probability that would satisfy the reasonable foreseeability requirement was described in The Wagon Mound (No. 2) as a “real risk”, i.e. “one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendan[t] . . . and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty., [1967] A.C. 617 (P.C.), at p. 643).
[14] The remoteness inquiry depends not only upon the degree of probability required to meet the reasonable foreseeability requirement, but also upon whether or not the plaintiff is considered objectively or subjectively. One of the questions that arose in this case was whether, in judging whether the personal injury was foreseeable, one looks at a person of “ordinary fortitude” or at a particular plaintiff with his or her particular vulnerabilities. This question may be acute in claims for mental injury, since there is a wide variation in how particular people respond to particular stressors. The law has consistently held — albeit within the duty of care analysis — that the question is what a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer: see White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1509 (H.L.); Devji v. Burnaby (District) (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 205, 1999 BCCA 599; Vanek. As stated in White, at p. 1512: “The law expects reasonable fortitude and robustness of its citizens and will not impose liability for the exceptional frailty of certain individuals.”
The Rankin and Mustapha cases explainl foreseeability as pertaining to whether a person could reasonably anticipate that specific behavior might cause harm to some other person. Moreover, according to the principles established in Rankin and Mustapha, when evaluating whether harm was foreseeable, a court should approach the situation from the perspective of foresight before the incident occurred rather than in hindsight after the incident occurred.
Summary Comment
Negligence law involves the scrutiny of whether an individual acted without proper care and should be held accountable for the harm caused to another person. A component of the scrutiny into whether actions were without proper care involves the inquiry into whether the harm caused could be rationally seen as a possibility. If the harm was reasonably unforeseeable, then liability for the harm fails to arise.
NOTE: A considerable number of online searches that include “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often indicate a pressing need for capable legal support instead of a particular professional designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that regulates lawyers also oversees licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital components of this position. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal representation within its sanctioned scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable resolutions for clients.
