Ontario Social Host Liability: Carr Hatch in Law Times

Can a party host be held legally responsible when a guest is hurt after an underage house party? A recent Ontario decision says yes. Carr Hatch of Thomson Rogers LLP spoke with Law Times about Foulidis v. Schummer, where the court found that the hosts of a 16th birthday party owed a duty of care to a guest who was struck by a vehicle while leaving. Hatch, who represented the plaintiffs in the frequently cited 2017 case Wardak v. Froom, explained where social host liability in Ontario stands and why underage drinking changes the analysis.

Two house parties, two different outcomes

The Law Times article compares two recent decisions from different provinces. In Ontario’s Foulidis, two 16-year-olds organized a birthday party without their parents’ knowledge, and the crowd grew to roughly 100 people with underage drinking. Justice Dow found the hosts owed a duty of care to a guest injured by a motor vehicle after leaving.

In Nova Scotia’s 2025 decision in Peterson v. Anderson, no liability was found against the host of a rowdy off-campus party attended by Dalhousie University athletes. A tenant was injured after an intoxicated guest pushed him down a flight of stairs. The key difference was the age of the guests: university students versus 16-year-olds.

The “something more” test for social hosts

The leading case on social host liability in Canada is Childs v. Desormeaux, a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision. It held that simply hosting a party where alcohol is served does not make a host legally responsible for a guest’s injuries; there must be “something more.” Hatch pointed to Wardak as an example of what that “something more” can look like: a host taking on a parent-like role toward a vulnerable underage guest, in circumstances where harm was foreseeable. However, Wardak never reached a final ruling on liability. The court only decided that the case could go to trial. Foulidis goes further, with a judge actually finding that the hosts owed a duty of care.

“Foulidis bolsters a line of thought on social host liability that lawyers have been settling cases based on for many years since Childs,” Hatch said. He added that the decision strengthens the law for plaintiffs while giving defendants and their insurers more clarity, including on foreseeability.

Adult guests keep their autonomy; underage drinking changes everything

The Peterson decision confirmed that adults gathering and drinking at a party does not, on its own, create an inherent and obvious risk. Adult social hosts are also held to a far lower standard than commercial hosts such as bars and restaurants.

“The courts repeat frequently that adults do not check their autonomy at the door – they are responsible for their own conduct,” Hatch said. For parties involving minors, however, he cautioned that hosting with underage drinking “leaves you completely exposed if something goes wrong.”

What the Foulidis appeal could mean

Foulidis is now under appeal. If the Court of Appeal affirms it, the decision would become the leading Ontario authority on social host liability involving underage drinking. It would also clarify the factors that support a recognized duty of care owed by party hosts.

Read the full Law Times article by Mallory Hendry.