The Reinvention of Canadian Tort Law, 1945–5: Jordan House as a Case Study

Abstract

This article employs the case study method to investigate the social history of Canadian tort law and litigation after 1945. Its focus is Menow v Jordan House, the stem precedent of the Canadian common law of tavern-keeper liability for intoxicated patrons. The article examines the historical genesis, pleading, and adjudication of this litigation, probing why – in Canada in the late 1960s and early 1970s – the novel tort claim of an ejected intoxicant against a vendor of alcohol not only was imagined, discussed, and commenced but also was won by the plaintiff at three levels of court. The authors argue that the Jordan House lawsuit exemplified a pivotal moment of socio-legal discontinuity in Canada, portending a quarter century of change in three major facets of its tort law system: in the perceptions of lay persons with respect to their private legal rights and obligations; in the personal convictions, social geography, and litigation strategies of Canadian lawyers; and in the formulation of tort doctrine by Canada’s trial and appellate judges. The article is a sub-study of a larger project on the reinvention of tort law and litigation in Canada in the half-century after World War II.