Canadian Common Law: Social Host Liability Explained

Read more about social host liability under Canada’s common law, and what determines when a host owes a duty of care The morning after a dinner party, most hosts are thinking about dishes. But if a guest drove home drunk and caused a crash, the law might bring the party back to their door. Social host liability refers to the legal responsibility a private host may carry when an intoxicated guest leaves a gathering and injures someone. It falls under negligence law, which means that the claim is not that the host meant to cause harm, but rather, it is that the host failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. To succeed in a social host liability claim, four things must be established: These are similar to the elements that must also be established in a personal injury case for negligence. Learn more about the liability of the host of a party or an event under social host liability with this video: Check out our article on “ Personal injuries proceedings act: Limits, notices, and traps ” to learn about the factors that lawyers and litigants should not miss in these cases. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) addressed social host liability directly in Childs v. Desormeaux , 2006 SCC 18 , which is a case that arose from a New Year’s party in Ottawa. Desmond Desormeaux consumed approximately 12 beers over two and a half hours at a bring-your-own-booze (BYOB) party hosted by Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman. When he left, one of his hosts walked him to his car and asked if he was okay. Desormeaux said he was fine, drove into oncoming traffic, and left the teenager Zoe Childs paralyzed from the waist down. The SCC ruled unanimously that the hosts owed no duty of care . The court held that hosting a party where alcohol is served, without more, does not implicate a host in the creation of risk to the public. However, the court’s ruling in Childs was never meant to be a blanket shield. The social host liability analysis is always fact-specific, and the facts matter enormously. Whether a social host owes a duty of care depends on what that host knew and what the host did. Courts apply the Anns-Cooper-Odhavji framework drawn from Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse , 2003 SCC 69 , and which was affirmed in Childs . This framework runs on three requirements, namely: On foreseeability, the host’s knowledge of the guest’s intoxication is the central issue. As the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in Williams v. Richard, 2018 ONCA 889 , foreseeability in social host liability cases turns on whether the host had evidence the guest was intoxicated and whether an accident was therefore a reasonable consequence of allowing that guest to drive. Importantly, a history of a guest drinking and driving is not enough on its own. In Childs , the SCC held this inferential chain was too weak to support a finding of foreseeability, even in commercial host cases. On proximity, the court in Childs identified three situations where a positive duty to act may arise: Private social hosts generally do not fall into any of these three categories, but courts have recognized that something more can shift the analysis. In Williams , the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a summary dismissal and ordered a trial, finding that several facts potentially brought the case within the rule on social host liability : The court also pointed to Childs, where it was left open whether a social host who continues serving a visibly intoxicated guest knowing that guest plans to drive could attract liability. That question has never been conclusively answered by a Canadian court, for now. Watch this video which explains the Childs case and social host liability specifically under Ontario’s laws: Check out Canadian Lawyer’s Special Report on Canada’s Best Personal Injury Law Firms for a list of the country’s leading personal injury boutiques and firms. The law draws a firm line between social and commercial hosts, and that