Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87

This is where we share SCC information, which is 'Canada' Jurisdiction wide.
Post Reply
User avatar
White Wolf
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2025 1:58 pm

Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87

Post by White Wolf »

Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision establishing that employers can be liable for negligent misrepresentation during hiring interviews. The court ruled that if a company carelessly misrepresents the nature of a job, and the employee suffers damages by relying on it, they are liable even if the employment contract has a "without cause" termination clause.

Key Details and Impact:
Case Significance: Defines the five-part test for negligent misrepresentation in Canada: a duty of care, untrue/misleading statement, negligence in the statement, reasonable reliance, and detrimental reliance.

Facts: Mr. Queen left his job based on promises of a long-term project at Cognos, which was cancelled shortly after he started, resulting in his termination.

Ruling: The Court found a "special relationship" during the interview, making the employer liable for damages ($67,224) despite the subsequent employment contract terms.

Application: This case remains critical for employment law, particularly regarding pre-employment representations in startups or expanding companies.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial judge's decision in favor of the appellant. IV. Analysis



A. Introduction

This appeal involves an action in tort to recover damages caused by alleged negligent misrepresentations made in the course of a hiring interview by an employer (the respondent), through its representative, to a prospective employee (the appellant) with respect to the employer and the nature and existence of the employment opportunity. Though a relatively recent feature of the common law, the tort of negligent misrepresentation relied on by the appellant and first recognized by the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne, supra, is now an established principle of Canadian tort law. This Court has confirmed on many occasions, sometimes tacitly, that an action in tort may lie, in appropriate circumstances, for damages caused by a misrepresentation made in a negligent manner: see Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, 1970 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1971] S.C.R. 957; J. Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co., 1972 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 769; Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, 1973 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1974] S.C.R. 1189; Hodgins v. Hydro‑Electric Commission of the Township of Nepean, 1975 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 501; The Pas (Town of) v. Porky Packers Ltd., 1976 CanLII 147 (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 51; Haig v. Bamford, 1976 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466; Carman Construction, supra; V.K. Mason Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1985 CanLII 608 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 271; and Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co., 1991 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3.

While the doctrine of Hedley Byrne, supra, is well established in Canada, the exact breadth of its applicability is, like any common law principle, subject to debate and to continuous development. At the time this appeal was heard, there have only been a handful of cases where the tort of negligent misrepresentation was used in a pre‑employment context such as the one involved here: see Steer v. Aerovox Inc. (1984), 1984 CanLII 49 (NS SC), 65 N.S.R. (2d) 91 (S.C.T.D.); H.B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd. v. Wooldridge (1980), 1980 CanLII 2604 (NS CA), 115 D.L.R. (3d) 97 (N.S.S.C.A.D.); Williams v. School District No. 63 (Saanich) (1986), 1986 CanLII 1207 (BC SC), 11 C.C.E.L. 233 (B.C.S.C.), aff'd on other grounds (1987), 1987 CanLII 2660 (BC CA), 17 C.C.E.L. 257 (B.C.C.A.); Grenier v. Timmins Board of Education, Ont. H.C., No. 1250/82, May 31, 1984, 26 A.C.W.S. (2d) 285; Pettit v. Prince George & District Credit Union (1991), 1991 CanLII 188 (BC SC), 35 C.C.E.L. 140 (B.C.S.C.); and Roy v. B.N.P.P. Regional Police Commission (1986), 1986 CanLII 5385 (NB KB), 15 C.C.E.L. 167 (N.B.Q.B.). Without question, the present factual situation is a novel one for this Court.


Read more:
1993 CanLII 146 (SCC) | Queen v. Cognos Inc. | CanLII https://share.google/6uK0yI3UWbyOfhQLq
Post Reply

Return to “SUPREME COURT OF CANADA”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest