Yes No Share to Facebook
Reasonably Foreseeable:
Remoteness Principles Regarding a View to Risk of Harm
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: What does foreseeability mean in a negligence lawsuit in Ontario, and how do courts decide if the harm was too remote?
Answer: Foreseeability in negligence means an objective test of whether, from the defendant’s position before the incident, a reasonable person could reasonably foresee that their conduct might create a real risk of harm to someone in the plaintiff’s position, rather than relying on hindsight after the harm occurred. Courts also use remoteness to ask whether the actual harm is too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable, and they consider what a person of ordinary fortitude would likely suffer (especially for mental injury). If you’re dealing with a negligence claim in Ontario, Olson Craig Legal’s Lawyer & Paralegals can help you understand what must be proven, assess whether the alleged harm was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote, and organize your next steps across Ontario; call (226) 886-2001 to book help.
When Foreseeability Is Referred to Within a Negligence Lawsuit, What Does Foreseeability Mean?
Foreseeability Refers to Whether a Harm Resulting From Certain Conduct Could Reasonably Be Foreseen As a Possibility.
Understanding Reasonable Foreseeability Including Remoteness Principles Regarding Risk of Causing Harm
The principle of reasonable foreseeability applies within negligence law. To simplify, reasonable foreseeability involves the awareness of risk of harm that might arise from a specific behavior. As the basics of negligence law involve the question of what a reasonably minded person would do in a given situation, it is necessary to review what a reasonably minded person might foresee as a potential risk arising from the specific behaviour that is being challenged as unreasonable.
The Law
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, the Supreme Court discussed reasonable foreseeability and remoteness principles wherein each respective case it was stated:
[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.”
As per the Rankin and Mustapha cases, foreseeability revolves around whether a person could reasonably view the possibility that certain actions might lead to harm of another person. Furthermore, following the guidance of Rankin and Mustapha cases, while evaluating whether harm was foreseeable, a court should approach the question from a retro-active yet forward-looking perspective instead of looking back perspective after an incident has actually occurred..
Summary Comment
Negligence law involves the scrutiny of whether an individual acted without proper care and should be held accountable for the harm caused to another person. A component of the scrutiny into whether actions were without proper care involves the inquiry into whether the harm caused could be rationally seen as a possibility. Negligence fails to arise if harm from the conduct in question was reasonably unforeseeable.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” usually indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, allowing them to advocate for clients in specific litigation scenarios. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are foundational to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its authorized framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve swift and positive outcomes for clients.