My starting point is an observation of the great Canadian judge and jurist, Justice Allen Linden, a longstanding enthusiast
of no-fault compensation. “[N]o-fault,” he wrote, “means different things to different people.”1 It is, in fact, a term applied to a variety of alternatives to compensation by way of traditional, private law processes,
not a unitary phenomenon. A major theme of this paper is
... [Show full abstract] that the shape no-fault has taken in different contexts has been
dependent upon the social problem it was designed to solve. Yet it is still possible to find enough commonality in the different
schemes that have emerged to make no-fault in the common law a worthy subject of study in its own right.