The Law of Tort is an integral part of the Canadian legal system that deals with civil wrongs committed by an individual that violate the legal rights of another. The term 'tort' originates from the Latin word 'tortum,' meaning 'to twist.' The harm caused by a tortious act may be physical, emotional, or financial, and the wrongdoer can be held legally liable for the damages. A tort is distinct from a mere breach of contract or trust. Numerous legal experts have defined tort, highlighting the nature of this branch of law.

Tort is a civil wrong that is not precipitated exclusively by a breach of contract or trust, and the remedy for it is a common law action for unliquidated damages. According to Winfield, tortious liability results from the violation of a duty fixed by the law towards society, and the breach of this duty can be addressed through a lawsuit for unliquidated damages. Frazer describes a tort as the infringement of the rights in rem of a private individual, providing them with grounds for compensation in case of injury.

While every civil wrong may not qualify as a tort, the Law of Tort is applicable throughout Canada, except in Quebec that is governed by the law of obligations. Canadian law of torts is primarily a judge-made law, derived from the English tort law, supplemented by provincial regulatory laws and automotive safety Acts. In a tort suit, the defendant is called the tortfeasor, and plaintiffs primarily seek monetary compensation in the form of unliquidated damages.

Courts generally refrain from holding public authorities accountable for their negligent decisions, as opposed to their negligent acts, because of policy decision immunity, a doctrine that protects the government from legal liability arising from policy decisions.

Negligence in tort law refers to the violation of legal duty to take care, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, which a reasonable person would exercise in the given circumstances. To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the plaintiff must prove five elements, including the legal duty to exercise reasonable care, the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, the causal relationship between the negligent conduct and the physical harm caused, damages suffered by the plaintiff, and proximate cause, demonstrating that the harm was foreseen as foreseeable by the defendant.

A recent case, Nelson (City) v. Marchi 2021 SCC 41, elucidated on the Law of Tort vis-a-vis government decision-making. In this case, the plaintiff had sustained injuries due to the city's negligent snow plowing operations that resulted in snowbanks along the city curbs separating parking stalls from sidewalks. The city defended itself, claiming that snow plowing operations were policy decisions and not standard operational decisions, leading to the Supreme Court explaining the distinction between core policy decisions that made the government immune and non-core operational decisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada has made a ruling on the City of Nelson's appeal, agreeing with the Appellate Court that there were errors in judgment made by the trial court. This decision clarified the differences between core and non-core policy decisions that are made by the government, with only non-core policy decisions attracting liability for negligence.

There are two categories under which the government's decisions and actions are divided and assessed for liability – core and non-core policy decisions. Core policy decisions are immune from liability, recognizing the separation of powers between the legislative and executive roles. To identify core policy decisions, the Court considers various factors such as the level of responsibility of the decision-maker, the process by which the decisions were made, nature and extent of budgetary considerations, and the extent to which the decision was based on objective criteria.

The Court also clarified that budgetary implications alone do not automatically categorize an action as a core policy decision. Operational decisions referring to practical implementation of policies and decision-making fall under non-core policy decisions. Therefore, only the nature of the decision should be assessed, and financial implications or the mere presence of the word "policy" should not be taken into consideration.

The Court further held that the decisions regarding snow removal, such as the ones made by the City of Nelson, did not come under the ambit of core policy decisions and could attract a duty of care, ultimately resulting in a tort claim. The case should return to trial, given that it bears none of the hallmarks of core policy.

Tom Barnes, CEO of Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia, stated in an e-mail that the decision in the case of Nelson (City) V. Marchi will be leading precedent in municipal and tort law in the near future.