Whether a defendant’s direct causation of harm should be a prerequisite to bypassing the proximity analysis in cases involving reasonably foreseeable physical harm — Whether foreseeability without more should ever be sufficient to establish a duty of care where the direct cause of physical harm is the deliberate criminal act of a third party — In what circumstances should a defendant’s conduct be characterized as an overt act for the purpose of the duty of care analysis? — Whether the doctrine of strict liability is definitively and permanently confined to a claim based on the use or misuse of real property or whether strict liability could apply to the manufacture and sale of uniquely dangerous products — With the benefit of a full evidentiary record, based on current societal norms and expectations, is it appropriate to extend the doctrine of strict liability incrementally to apply to a company that chooses to manufacture and sell a uniquely dangerous product without implementing available safety technology — Whether there are any circumstances in which a manufacturer’s decision about the design, manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of a product could give rise to a claim in public nuisance — Whether with the benefit of a full evidentiary record, based on current societal norms and expectations regarding gun violence, it is possible to conclude that a decision to design, manufacture, and/or distribute a semiautomatic handgun without available safety features unreasonably interferes with the public interest in health, safety, morality, comfort, or convenience while using public property in Canada or whether such a claim is doomed to fail. — dismissed 06/25/2026 — Supreme Advocacy acted as agent for the Applicant.
Read the lower court decision from the ONCA here.