What is the current state of the ex turpi doctrine in the context of tort law?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Daemore v. Von Windheim, 2011 BCSC 1523 (CanLII):

The ex turpi doctrine, as applied in tort, has not historically been well understood. In Hall v. Hebert, 1993 CanLII 141 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159, McLachlin J. (as she then was) says that its application in tort, “in both Canada and elsewhere, has had a chequered history” (p. 171). The seminal case explaining the judicial policy underlying the ex turpi doctrine and its application in the context of tort law is the majority judgment of McLachlin J. in Hall v. Hebert.

The question is, “under what circumstances should the immoral or criminal conduct of a plaintiff bar the plaintiff from recovering damages to which he or she would otherwise be entitled” (p. 169). The following principles and approach are established in Hall v. Hebert and are applicable in the present case. 1. Application of the ex turpi doctrine in the tort context invalidates otherwise valid and enforceable actions in tort (p. 169). 2. Therefore, its application must be based on a firm doctrinal foundation and he made subject to clear limits and should occur “in very limited circumstances” (p. 169). 3. The only justification for its application is the preservation of the integrity of the legal system. This concern is only in issue where a damage award in a civil suit would allow a person to profit from illegal or wrongful conduct or would permit evasion or rebate of a penalty prescribed by the criminal law (p. 159). It would, in short, introduce an inconsistency in the law. It is particularly important in this context that we bear in mind that the law must aspire to be a unified institution, the parts of which — contract, tort, the criminal law — must be in essential harmony. For the courts to punish conduct with the one hand while rewarding it with the other, would be to “create an intolerable fissure in the law’s conceptually seamless web”: Weinrib, supra, at p. 42. We thus see that the concern, put at its most fundamental, is with the integrity of the legal system. [p. 176]

Other Questions


What is the current state of the law on solicitor’s duty of care in the context of a mortgage dispute? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law in the context of the BC Supreme Court of Canada's decision making decisions on same sex discrimination? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on disclosure of documents in the context of the Bylaw? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on the "Golden Years" doctrine? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law in the context of mental health issues? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on the treatment of pets by the courts in the context of the Henderson decision? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law in the context of tripping on the edge of a sidewalk? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law in the context of a university's appeal? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the language of judicial review in a civil law context? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on disclosure and determination of income of a spouse's income in the context of a self-employed individual? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.