Court rejects 'no duty' defence, stresses drivers' obligations even when right-of-way is in dispute
Ontario’s Superior Court has ruled drivers owe a duty of care – even with right-of-way – after a fatal three-car crash.
In McFee v. Sutram, 2025 ONSC 5526, released on October 2, 2025, the court addressed the aftermath of a 2016 Stouffville collision, clarifying the application of established negligence principles for motorists.
The decision addresses the legal consequences of an April 22, 2016, accident on Warden Avenue near Vivian Road in Stouffville, Ontario. The crash involved vehicles driven by Samantha McFee, Bharrat Sutram, and John G. Rae, who was driving a vehicle owned by Lakeview Elevator Inc. Multiple civil actions were brought by McFee and by occupants of Sutram’s vehicle. The accident resulted in the death of a passenger in Sutram’s car.
Three civil actions were commenced, each alleging negligence against Rae and Sutram. At trial, Rae argued that he did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs, asserting that he was not required by statute to slow down and allow Sutram to re-enter the northbound lane. The court heard arguments on this issue at the close of evidence.
Justice Sunil S. Mathai rejected Rae’s position, noting that Canadian courts have long recognized a duty of care owed by drivers to other road users – even when the right-of-way favours the driver. As Justice Mathai wrote: “A driver owes a duty of care to other users of the road, even in situations where the presumption of a right-of-way favours the driver.”
The ruling makes clear that, because courts have long recognized a driver’s duty of care to other road users, judges need not revisit this issue unless the facts are novel. The court confirmed that this established relationship alone is enough to ground a duty of care, regardless of specific conduct or statutory requirements.
Justice Mathai concluded that Rae owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, noting that driving is “a heavily regulated activity because of the inherent dangers that exist when someone gets behind the wheel of a car.” The decision reinforces the principle that all motorists must operate their vehicles with reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.
This ruling clarifies the application of the duty of care in negligence claims arising from multi-vehicle accidents and the obligations of drivers in such scenarios.
