Her fetus was supposedly damaged in the accident and was delivered by Caesarean section on the day of the crash, before the expected due date.

[2] Cory noted that the only issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a tort claim could be made: is a pregnant woman liable for negligence?

Following Kamloops, the Court said a duty of care is recognized if the involved people are closely related, and if the issue does not raise questions about public policy.

As the Court noted, "almost any careless act or omission by a pregnant woman could be expected to have a detrimental impact on foetal development.

"[4] However, the issue raised questions of public policy; it implicated privacy rights of a pregnant woman and her bodily control.

[6] The issue of a pregnant woman's responsibilities ran deep, deeper than that of another person who could be sued for causing damage to someone else's fetus.

[8] Turning to other countries, Cory found that in the United Kingdom the Parliament had enacted a law granting tort immunity to pregnant women for fetal damages.

However, Cory replied that "With respect, the UK legislative solution to the issue at bar cannot be interpreted as support for the test suggested by the Court of Appeal.

[19] Lastly, the Court decided that if the existence of motor vehicle insurance is to be relied upon as the basis for imposing a legal duty of care upon pregnant women, then this solution should be enacted by the legislature.

[20] than she already faced from her duty of care owed to any passengers (e.g. another pregnant woman with a born alive child [21]), or the driver of the car also involved in the accident.

[23] "To grant a pregnant woman immunity from the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her acts for her born alive child would create a legal distortion as no other plaintiff carries such a one-sided burden, nor any defendant such an advantage.

"[24] Although this case did not address abortion in Canada, Professor Rand Dyck in a discussion on security of person notes the decision bears some parallels with Tremblay v Daigle (1989).