Zubas & Associates recently successfully acted for the Respondents in an important employment law and negligence case before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The appellant attempted to advance a claim in negligence based on a novel duty of care. In addressing the appellant’s submissions, the Court rejected the premise that a judgment creditor, seeking to realize on a debt through garnishment proceedings, owes a duty of care to a judgment debtor.
At paragraph 36, the Court states:
[36] We are satisfied there is no prima facie duty of care. The evidence does not establish the requisite proximity between the appellant and Mann Engineering. There is no relationship between them other than the relationship of a judgment creditor using the garnishment proceeding in an effort to realize on the debt owed by a judgment debtor. That relationship has played out in the context of ongoing litigation initiated by Mann Engineering in an effort to recover the debt owed to it by the appellant. The adversarial relationship inherent in the litigation process is antithetical to the kind of relationship that gives rise to a duty on one party to take reasonable care not to interfere with the legitimate interests of the other party. There is nothing in the relationship that could justify placing an obligation on Mann Engineering to take reasonable steps to protect the appellant’s ongoing employment from any possible negative consequences flowing from Mann Engineering’s conduct of the garnishment proceedings.
Read the full decision here:
Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd., 2020 ONCA 808 (CanLII).
For assistance in your litigation matter, please contact Zubas Flett Law at 416-593-5844 or questions@employment-lawyers.ca.