By Anthony L. Giannotti ( October 27, 2026, 12:02 PM EDT) -- The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hemmings v. Padmore, 2026 SCC 34 returns to a question at the centre of Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27: when is an injury too remote to attribute to a negligent defendant? The result is a divided judgment, but its central lesson is clear. A court must identify the risk that made the defendant’s conduct negligent and ask whether the plaintiff’s injury was a real, reasonably foreseeable consequence of that risk....