Last Updated: August 23 2026
In an Ontario negligence claim, how do courts decide whether harm was reasonably foreseeable?
Freed Legal Services can help you understand foreseeability in Ontario negligence by explaining that courts use an objective, retro-active but forward-looking test: the question is whether someone in the defendant’s position ought reasonably to have foreseen a real risk of harm, not whether the harm actually happened or whether it was merely possible, and remoteness focuses on whether the harm is too unrelated to fairly hold the defendant liable. If you’re dealing with a personal injury or injury-adjacent negligence issue, a paralegal consultation can help you assess foreseeability and next steps without delay, call (800) 716-1897 to book a free 1/2-hour consult.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Understanding Foreseeability Principles
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.
Note: Please contact Freed Legal Services by phone at: (800) 716-1897 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The Supreme Court explained reasonable foreseeability and remoteness principles in 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, by stating:
[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 describe the foreseeability question as relating to whether an individual could sensibly foresee that certain behavior might culminate in the occurrence of harm to another person. Furthermore, in line with the Rankin and Mustapha case decisions, when analyzing whether harm was foreseeable, a court is required to consider the event from the perspective of foresight as opposed to looking back with hindsight after harm has actually occurred.
Conclusion
Negligence law encompasses the assessment of whether an individual behaved with an unreasonable lack of care and should be deemed responsible for harm brought about by such lack of care. Within the inquiry of whether the behavior lacked due care is the question regarding whether the ensuing harm could be reasonably anticipated. If the harm was reasonably unforeseeable, then liability for the harm fails to arise.
NOTE: A significant quantity of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a requirement for prompt and proficient legal counsel rather than a specific job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” operate under the regulation of the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural proficiency are fundamental to that function. Freed Legal Services provides legal representation within its authorized mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
