Source: https://davidcheifetz.ca/2014/01/11/tort-negligence-causation-common-sense-what-might-happen-in-2014/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:57:04+00:00

Document:
An application for leave to appeal to the SCC is awaiting decision in Hansen v Sulyma, SCC #35556; 2013 BCCA 349. The panel is Justices Abella, Rothstein and Moldaver.
If leave is granted, the Court might clarify the meaning of the Snell proposition that factual causation is a matter of common sense.
Addendum Feb 1, 2014: Leave to appeal was denied on Jan 30, 2014.
 The “but for” causation test must be applied in a robust common sense fashion. There is no need for scientific evidence of the precise contribution the defendant’s negligence made to the injury. See Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority,  A.C. 1074 (H.L.), at p. 1090, per Lord Bridge; Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 311.
 A common sense inference of “but for” causation from proof of negligence usually flows without difficulty. Evidence connecting the breach of duty to the injury suffered may permit the judge, depending on the circumstances, to infer that the defendant’s negligence probably caused the loss. See also the discussion on this issue by the Australian courts: Betts v. Whittingslowe (1945), 71 C.L.R. 637 (H.C.), at p. 649; Bennett v. Minister of Community Welfare (1992), 176 C.L.R. 408 (H.C.), at pp. 415-16; Flounders v. Millar,  NSWCA 238, 49 M.V.R. 53; Roads and Traffic Authority v. Royal,  HCA 19, 245 A.L.R. 653, at paras. 137-44.
Stating the issues another way: What is the role of “common sense” in the analysis of the evidence which the judge or jury is to use to decide if factual causation has been established on the balance of probability? What does “common sense” mean in the causation analysis? What does “robust” mean?
Disclosure: I am now a member of the firm representing the defendant / applicant.
You could mention that to the CJ the next time you have the opportunity. Or maybe a trial judge. Let me know if you survive.
Actually, let me know even if you don’t survive. Proof of the afterlife (regardless of where you are) would stir some pots, nicely.
Or perhaps they can answer the question that Mark Twain asked: If common sense is so common, why is there so little of it?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.