A marine negligence appeal concerning recovery of contractual relational economic loss after a tug and barge damaged a railway bridge owned by the Crown but used by the respondent under contract.
The majority held that pure economic loss is prima facie recoverable where negligence, foreseeability, and sufficient proximity are established, subject to residual policy limits.
On the facts, the respondent's operations were so closely integrated with the damaged bridge that recovery was justified within a limited joint or common venture category and did not create indeterminate liability.
The dissent would have maintained the bright-line exclusionary rule for contractual relational economic loss absent a proprietary or possessory interest or other compelling policy basis.
