A Multi-Vehicle Collision that Sparked Clarification
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the scope of a driver’s duty of care in McFee v. Sutram, 2025 ONSC 5526, a case arising from a tragic collision on Warden Avenue near Vivian Road in Stouffville, Ontario. The April 2016 crash involved three vehicles driven by Ms. McFee, Mr. Sutram, and Mr. Rae. The impact resulted in the death of a passenger in Mr. Sutram’s vehicle and triggered multiple civil actions alleging negligence.
Ms. McFee and several passengers from Mr. Sutram’s car brought lawsuits claiming that both Mr. Sutram and Mr. Rae were responsible for the accident. At trial, Mr. Rae argued that he owed no duty of care because he was not legally obliged under the Highway Traffic Act to slow down or allow Mr. Sutram to return to the northbound lane. The duty issue became a central question during final submissions.
The Court’s Determination
Justice Mathai rejected Mr. Rae’s “no duty” defence, reaffirming that all motorists owe a duty of care to others on the road, regardless of who has the right of way. The court emphasized that this duty has long been recognized at common law and does not require re-examination unless a relationship is novel or outside settled precedent.
According to the decision, driving is a “heavily regulated activity” that carries inherent risk, and with that risk comes the expectation of reasonable care at all times. The ruling highlights that the Highway Traffic Act supplements but does not limit or replace the common law obligation to act prudently behind the wheel.
Distinguishing Between Duty of Care and Standard of Care
The judgment draws an essential distinction between two related but separate legal concepts. The duty of care addresses whether a legal relationship exists between parties that could give rise to liability. The standard of care looks at whether a driver’s actual conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
Justice Mathai clarified that the existence of a right of way pertains to the factual context, not to legal immunity. Even a compliant driver can be negligent if their behaviour fails to meet the standard expected of a reasonably careful motorist. This ensures that courts evaluate real-world driving behaviour rather than relying solely on technical compliance with road rules.
Broader Legal Analysis and Context
This case reflects the Supreme Court’s Anns/Cooper framework for determining duties of care. Justice Mathai emphasized that the relationship between drivers is inherently proximate and foreseeability of harm is obvious on public roadways. As such, courts need not reapply the Anns/Cooper test to ordinary motor vehicle interactions.
The distinction between misfeasance (active wrongdoing) and nonfeasance (failure to act) was also explored. The court concluded that a driver can still face liability for failing to take reasonable precautions, even if they do not engage in overtly wrongful conduct. This clarification is significant for practitioners defending motor vehicle claims, as it confirms that omissions or inaction can ground negligence where the risk of harm is foreseeable.
Implications for Drivers, Insurers, and Defendants
For motorists, this ruling serves as a reminder that holding the right of way does not absolve one from responsibility to anticipate potential hazards. For insurers and defence counsel, it reinforces that liability assessments must account for the nuances of driver behavior under factual conditions rather than relying on statutory priority alone.
From a litigation perspective, McFee v. Sutram underscores that liability apportionment in multi-vehicle collisions often depends on assessing prudence and reaction, not merely legality. A driver’s lawful entitlement to proceed will not excuse them if a reasonable driver in the same circumstances would have acted more cautiously.
Flaherty McCarthy LLP continues to analyze emerging case law on negligence and driver liability to ensure clients receive strategic, up-to-date guidance in motor vehicle defence claims across Ontario. Our team remains ready to assist clients in navigating complex roadway liability and duty of care disputes.
