Holiday Parties: Your Legal Obligations as a Host

Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Menow v. Jordan House Ltd, 1974 SCR 239, it has been established that commercial hosts (ie. bars and restaurants), have a duty of care towards their patrons.

For instance, a bartender must intervene if a clearly intoxicated customer is holding his car keys and heading towards the exit.  While case law and regulations definitively outline the responsibilities of commercial hosts, the guidelines for private or social hosts are much less clear.

Many may wonder what their responsibilities are if they host their own party, particularly if they are serving alcohol. Can a private host be held responsible if an intoxicated guest leaves a party and injures themselves or someone else in a car accident?  Like most questions of law, the answer is ‘it depends’.

In 2006, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Childs v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18, that as a general rule, private party hosts do not owe a duty of care to a person that was injured as a result of a party guest, Justice McLachlin stated in the Childs decision:

“[H]osting a party where alcohol is served does not, without more, establish the degree of proximity required to give rise to a duty of care on the hosts to third-party highway users who may be injured by an intoxicated guest.”[2]

Following the Childs case, plaintiffs who claim social host liability have sought to demonstrate that there was ‘something more’ in their specific situations. Legal precedents indicate that either an inherently dangerous party environment or a paternalistic bond between host and guest can constitute this ‘something’,

In Wardak v. Froom, 2017 ONSC 1166., a minor and intoxicated party attendee left a gathering hosted by another underage individual and subsequently suffered a serious accident while driving.

The guest filed a lawsuit against his friend’s parents, asserting that they knew about the underage drinking and failed to uphold a duty of care to him. The parents sought a summary judgment; however, Justice Matheson ruled that a trial was warranted since liability against the parents could still be established.

In Williams v Richard, 2018 ONCA 889, Mark Williams and Jake Richard had been drinking at Mr. Richards’ mother’s home. Afterward, Mr. Williams drove to retrieve his children but tragically struck a stationary tractor trailer, resulting in his death and severe injuries to three of his children.

In a motion for summary judgment, Justice Gorman dismissed the claims against Jake Richard and his mother, considering them social hosts. Relying on the Childs ruling, Justice Gorman determined that the necessary duty of care had not been demonstrated.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was granted, and the motion judge’s ruling was overturned. The Court in allowing the appeal, highlighted the factual differences between this action and Child’s.

For example, it was clear to Mr. Richard that Mr. Williams was noticeably intoxicated when he left his home. This was not a B.Y.O.B event like Childs‘ party; Mr. Richard had provided the beer, and they both consumed it together. Therefore, Mr. Richard had a definite understanding of just how much Mr. Williams had drunk.

In McCormick v Plambeck, 2022 BCCA 219, the defendant adult homeowners permitted their daughter to host a gathering attended by approximately 65 minors and young adults. The parents provided some alcohol during the event.

Eventually, two attendees left the party, stole a neighbor’s car, and crashed it, leading to the death of the driver and severe injuries to the passenger. The injured passenger subsequently filed a lawsuit against both the owner of the car and the party hosts.

The trial judge found that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were not foreseeable by the hosts and therefore no duty of care existed between them.

While McCormick’s facts might suggest that the relationship between the parent hosts and the underage guests could be seen as “paternalistic,” the trial judge effectively refined that notion by asserting that even if the injuries had been reasonably anticipated, the hosts fulfilled the necessary standard of care by implementing specific precautions to avert any dangerous situations.

Throughout the party, the hosts actively monitored their guests, collected the car keys from those they knew had driven there, and offered rides home to some attendees.

The court concluded that the defendant’s actions should be evaluated based on how a careful and sensible parent would behave according to the immediate community standards of the time. The Appeal was dismissed.

The rulings in Wardak, Williams, and McCormick have helped to further understand social host liability after the Childs decision.  Essentially, a private social host is generally not liable for injuries incurred by third parties due to a guest at the gathering.

However, the risk of liability increases for injuries suffered by guests themselves. Factors like serving alcohol (instead of guests bringing their own), being aware of a guest’s intoxication, or allowing underage drinking can raise the likelihood of a private social host being found liable.

Overall, it is important to encourage responsible drinking as a host of a private gathering.  Any guests drinking at private party should be of-age, and any individual drinking should have a safe ride home.