Like the trial court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that Zimmerman and Courrier did not owe a duty of care to Childs, but for different reasons: the relationship between the hosts and the guest was not proximate enough to ground a duty of care.
The trial court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario both concluded that Zimmerman and Courrier did not owe a duty of care to Childs, but they arrived at this conclusion through different interpretations of the proximity required to establish such a duty.