How far does social host liability extend? Two cases provide insight into the spectrum
Two recent decisions, from separate provinces, examine two house parties gone wrong and whether the social host could be found liable. The Foulidis decision is under appeal and, if affirmed, would provide Court of Appeal authority for a social host owing and breaching a duty of care at a party involving underage drinking.
In the Ontario case of Foulidis v. Schummer, Justice Dow decided that the party hosts owed a duty of care to a party guest when injured by a motor vehicle while leaving the party. The party was a 16th birthday party with underaged drinking where the crowd ballooned to about 100 people. The party was organized without parental knowledge by two 16-year-olds.
In the Nova Scotia case of Peterson v. Anderson, decided by Justice Smith in 2025, liability was not found against the party host when a tenant of the host was injured on stairway after being pushed down a flight of stairs by one of the party guests, who was intoxicated. The event was a rowdy off-campus party attended by many varsity athletes from Dalhousie University. A significant part of this decision was the focus on the fact that invited guests do not “check their autonomy at the door” when they show up to a party.
One key distinguishing factor between the two above cases was the Foulidis party involved 16-year-olds while the Dalhousie party involved University students. Hosting a party with underaged drinking can be an inherently risky activity, while hosting a party for adults with drinking involved is not.
Carr Hatch of Thomson Rogers LLP represented the plaintiffs in the 2017 Wardak v. Froom case, one of the regularly cited cases examining social host liability involving underaged drinking.
“The court in Wardak (Summary Judgment Motion) left the door open for liability to be established at trial in the Foulidis type of fact scenario, involving underaged drinking,” Hatch says.
He added “In Foulidis, Justice Gow’s finding for a duty of care owed provides further support for what lawyers have been arguing for in similar cases in social host cases for many years.”
It comes down to the “something more” threshold established in Childs v. Desormeaux, the 2006 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that remains the leading authority on social host liability. Wardak had the hallmarks of that “something more” — a paternalistic relationship in which the party host owed a duty of care to a vulnerable underage drinker where it was foreseeable that harm could come from such a party — but there was no actual finding as that case addressed whether it could go to trial.
“Foulidis bolsters a line of thought on social host liability that lawyers have been settling cases based on for many years since Childs,” Hatch added. “The Foulidis decision strengthens this area of law for Plaintiffs while providing further clarity for Defendants and their insurers including on the issue of foreseeability.”
In contrast, the Nova Scotia Peterson decision involving the Dalhousie house party confirmed that hosting a party where adults gather and drink alcohol, in and of itself, does not create an inherent and obvious risk.
“The courts repeat frequently that adults do not check their autonomy at the door – they are responsible for their own conduct,” Hatch said, adding that adults do not have to worry when they host parties responsibly, it is when underaged drinking enters the picture where everything changes.
Adult social hosts are not held to anywhere close to the high standards of commercial hosts like bars or restaurants. But for minors and with reference to Foulidis, hosting a party with underaged drinking involved “leaves you completely exposed if something goes wrong,” Hatch noted.
“For adults, host your party with reasonable safeguards in place, as adults hosting a party where there is alcohol is not seen as a risky activity. Adult party guests do not check their autonomy at the door the minute they arrive at a party, they are held accountable for their own conduct”.
The Foulidis decision is under appeal in Ontario. Affirming the decision will provide further clarity on the duty of care owed by social hosts when underage drinking is involved. If affirmed, it will be the most recent and leading authority on social host liability in Ontario when underaged drinking is involved and it will provide further insight into the factors supporting a recognized duty of care owed by party hosts.
**
Carr Hatch is dedicated to helping victims and their families achieve the best possible results when they have suffered serious personal injuries. His practice focuses on helping victims of personal injuries and fatalities, sexual assault survivors, product liability, occupier liability, facility negligence, medical malpractice, motor vehicle cases, professional negligence, and class actions.
