this played a relatively small role in what happened), and he provided her
with alcoholic beverages and marijuana, knowing that when she was intoxicated, the plaintiff could be uncontrollable. However, while the previous conduct of the plaintiff, which I have described, should have alerted the defendant
to the risk, I do not find that her previous conduct was any more than unpredictable. Nor do I find that the defendant should have stopped the car
and permitted the plaintiff to exit. It was late at night, the plaintiff was intoxicated, and there was a greater and foreseeable risk of harm to her outside
the car than in. However, the defendant did drive too fast in all of the circumstances that were known to him, and he should have slowed his rate of speed
below the posted speed.
 In my view, Colebank does not establish the existence of
the duty of care submitted by Novex. Colebank is one of those
cases where the defendant provided the plaintiff with alcohol and
marijuana, knew of the risk from previous encounters, and the
defendant was driving too fast. The issue of whether the driver
owed a duty to ensure the plaintiff was buckled in the absence
of these aggravating factors was not considered, discussed or
decided by the court in Colebank.
 Novex also relies on Wang v. Horrod,  B.C.J. No.
1288, 48 B.C.L.R. (3d) 199 (C.A.). This case involves a passenger
hurt on a bus. During the bus trip, Ms. Wang decided to get up to
remove her coat. The bus moved forward. Ms. Wang fell and was
seriously injured. There was nothing unusual about the way the
bus started. Seat belts were not an issue in this case. The court
proceeded to conduct its analysis on the basis that there was
a duty of care. This naturally arose from the transit authorities
own policies requiring the bus driver to be aware of and ensure
passenger safety. The central issue was whether the driver
breached the standard of care.
 There are no seat belts on a bus. Intoxication was not at
issue. This case does not assist Novex’s submission.
 A duty of care owed by a taxi driver to a visibly intoxicated
adult passenger (or otherwise vulnerable adult passenger) has not
been previously recognized by Canadian courts.
 The onus is on Novex to establish that a prima face duty
of care exists in this case. See Childs v. Desormeaux, 
1 S.C.R. 643,  S.C.J. No. 18, 2006 SCC 18, at para. 13.
 If Novex establishes a prima facie duty exists in this case,
then the onus is on Yaxley to establish that there are residual