What is the meaning of “gross negligence” and “wilful misconduct” in Canadian law?

The seminal authority in Canada on the meaning of “gross negligence” and “wilful misconduct” is the oft-cited judgment of Duff C.J. in McCulloch v. Murray, 1942 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1942] S.C.R. 141. In comments made in his concurring reasons in the case, the Chief Justice said, at 145: I am, myself, unable to agree with the view that you may not have a case in which the jury could properly find the defendant guilty of gross negligence while refusing to find him guilty of wilful or wanton misconduct. All these phrases, gross negligence, wilful misconduct, wanton misconduct, imply conduct in which, if there is not conscious wrong doing, there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people in charge of motor cars habitually govern themselves. Subject to that, I think it is entirely a question of fact for the jury whether conduct falls within the category of gross negligence, or wilful misconduct, or wanton misconduct. These words, after all, are very plain English words, not difficult of application by a jury whose minds are not confused by too much verbal analysis.