Yes No Share to Facebook
Reasonably Foreseeable
Involves Remoteness Principles Regarding a View to Risk of Harm
Last Updated: August 08 2026
Question: What does “foreseeability” mean in an Ontario negligence lawsuit, and how do courts decide whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable before the incident?
Answer:
In Ontario negligence cases, foreseeability means whether, from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position before the incident, the risk of the type of harm could be rationally predicted as a real possibility, not judged using hindsight after the harm has happened. Courts treat it as an objective test, asking what the defendant ought reasonably to have foreseen and then applying remoteness to decide whether the harm is too unrelated to fairly hold the defendant liable. For example, the Supreme Court explained in Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587 that foreseeability is assessed prior to the event and focuses on reasonable foresight, not what occurred in fact, and in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114 that remoteness asks whether the harm is too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to impose fair liability. If you are dealing with a negligence claim in Ontario and want help understanding how foreseeability and remoteness may affect liability, Bulat Paralegal Service can assist with practical guidance on your next steps, call (705) 664-0334 to get started.
When Foreseeability Is Referred to Within a Negligence Lawsuit, What Does Foreseeability Mean?
The Question of Foreseeability Requires a Review of Whether An Incident Resulting in Harm Was Something That a Reasonable Person Could Think of as Having Possibility of Occurring.
Understanding Reasonable Foreseeability Including Remoteness Principles Regarding Risk of Causing Harm
Negligence law includes the principle of reasonable foreseeability. Reasonable foreseeability involves the question of whether a reasonable person could envision the risk of harm arising from the specific conduct in question. As a fundamental component of negligence law principles requires an analysis of what a reasonable person would do or avoid doing, analyzing what a reasonable person would view as risky becomes necessary within a negligence liability discussion.
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.”
In the Rankin and Mustapha cases, foreseeability is defined as the question of whether a person could rationally predict that certain conduct might bring about harm to another person. Additionally, as per Rankin and Mustapha, when examining whether harm was predictable as a possibility, a court must approach the question with a viewpoint of reasonable foresight rather than by using hindsight.
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 significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicates a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold licences are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation issues. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal advocacy within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling representation aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.