Administrative law is defined as the torso of law constructed by the agencies
and departments of the government.They areperturbed with the operation of
public powers, and tort law administers private law remedies. Nevertheless, when
administrative bodies injure members of the public due to the negligent
clearance of statutory powers, individuals to a greater extent turn to the
courts searching damages. Liability in negligence is a substantial facetof
accountability for public authorities. Further, lawsuits have a symbolic
reputation effect, even where the courts discover no liability.
They usually carry out the laws acknowledged by Congress or a state legislature.
When Congress approves a law on a sophisticated issue, Congress recurrently
needs help deciding all of the details of how the law will be sanctioned and
carried out. Administrative agencies and government departments fill in those
disparities for Congress and pass supplementary rules and regulations to
accomplish Congress's goals.Negligence is nothing but the failure to take
appropriate care over something to avoid provoking any injury. It occurs due to
one’s carelessness. In order to justify that the Defendant was careless or
negligent and consequently answerable for the injuries caused, one has to prove
all the elements. The elements include Duty, Breach ofDuty, Cause in Fact,
Proximate Cause, and Damages.
The juries are advised to look into these elements before ending at a verdict.
The law of negligence has been an exaltation industry for lawyers by the reason
oftheDonoghue v. Stevenson decision. Aperture of statutory duty is, though
repeatedly uncomplicated to prove than negligence customarily because the
legislation or regulations impose designated duties of care and set out how
those duty can be sacked.This article will outline the concept of
Regulatorynegligence with the help of few cases.
2. Duty of Care Analysis
McLachlin C.J stated the two steps involved in the analysis as follows:
The test for determining whether a person owes the duty of careconvolutes two
questions: (1) Does the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant
reveal copious foreseeability and proximity to authorize a prima facie duty of
care. (2) If so, are there any residual policy concerns which ought to
invalidate or restraint that duty of care.
3. Self-Regulatory Bodies
It is a non-governmental organization that has the competence to conceive and
invoke industry regulations and standards. The preference is to safeguard
investors through the organization of rules that promote ethics and quality.
Some of the examples include stock exchanges, the Investment Dealers Association
of Canada etc.
3.1 Collective Responsibility of Self-Regulatory Bodies
The proposal is to construct a system of incentives and disincentivesthat
embolden brutal oversightby the self-regulatory body as the main aim of
regulation is to overcomethe impunity for PMC activity. This might be
accomplished by imposing responsibility directly upon the self-regulatory bodies
themselves, thereby designating costs to those bodies for slack oversightand
accountability. The proposaladvanced here is an alternative of regulatory
negligence, and the negligence framework is specifically suitable because the
regulatory body appropriately bears role responsibilities correlated with
conforming supervisory obligations. There are , nevertheless, obstacles that
need to be overcomebefore such responsibilities may be designated upon
selfregulatorybodies even if the arguments in approval are constraining.
4.1 Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D
In this case the supreme court supported the striking out of a negligence claim
contrary to a treatment centre and a social worker on the grounds of proximity,
statutory immunity and residual policy. Here a teenager was evacuated from the
homeand placedin a treatment centre because of asserted parental abuse. The
family sued the Children’s AidSociety, the treatment centre and the social
worker for wrongly depriving them of their relationshipwith their child, in
part due to the pertinent statute which perceived the significance of family
relationships. The supreme court found that there was deficient proximity given
to the ruling statute. The primary goal of the legislation is guardianship of
the best interests of the child. The determining factor in this case according
to the court is the potentialfor antagonistic duties.
4.2 Sauer v. Canada (Attorney general)
This case is the “mad cow” class action. In 2003, a cow in Albertawasspotted
with mad cow disease, as a consequence of which the bordersto the United
States, Mexico, and Japan were locked to Canadian cattle and beef products with
cataclysmic economic repercussions for the profitable cattle industry. Cattle
farmers inaugurated a class action against the governmentfor grossly
inadvertent regulation of the cattle industry, as well as against the
manufacturer of allegedly adulterated feed. The claim against the government, in
this case, was for gross negligence in the design of a 1990 regulationwhich
sanctioned the use ofruminant meat and bone meal in cattle feed, and for
notconfirming aruminant feed ban regulation until1997. The
plaintiffsolicited explicit, public representations by the governmentcould
result in a “ public conjecture of a duty to Canadian cattle farmers to assure
the safety of cattle feed”, and thus a prima facie duty. The government argued
that the decisions were purely legislative. It also quibbled that the regulation
and feed ban decisions were policy rather than operational decisions.
Nevertheless, it was held by the court that it was not transparent and
discernible that the decisions were “policy” , and there was an evidentiary onus
on the crown to so establish.
4.3 Fullowka v.Royal Oak Ventures Inc
The purview of culpability for substandard administrative action may have
elevated in light of the supreme court of Canada's 2010 decision in this case.
In this case, the court held that the government owed a duty to mine workers to
safeguard them from a bomb detonation during a bitter labour relations dispute.
4.4 McCullock Finney c. Barreau(Quebec)
In this case, the court appeared to bolster the purview of
regulatorynegligence even in the face of a good faith immunity clause.
Administrative agencies are otherwise called as regulatory agencies. Like
statutes and case laws, we have administrative rules and regulations thatare
considered primary and as a binding lawfor citizens of the jurisdiction. The
very notion of Regulatory negligence is mainly an administrative law concept. As
such, it is addressed against public powers that activate and administer harm,
and the target is established upon the accountability of public authorities in
an instance of failure. Continued diligence by administrative lawyers is
necessary to safeguard members of the public from any harm. The pertinent
regulatory and integrity systems have to bereexamined and remodelled to
guarantee that there is no negligence further by making sure that the system is
acceptable enough in its fundamentals.
article has been Awarded Certificate of Excellence for Original Legal Research work by
our Penal of Judges