Conclusion on residual policy considerations
 Even if a prima facie duty of care had been found, the
residual policy considerations negate the imposition of a duty of
care as suggested by Novex.
If there is a duty of care, what is the duty owed by the taxi
 If I am wrong and there is a duty of care imposed on
Yaxley to ensure Mr. Stewart was seat belted, what is expected of
Yaxley in these circumstances?
 In my view, even if the intoxicated adult passenger was
a vulnerable person and a duty of care applied to Yaxley, the duty
of care of the taxi cab driver would be to advise the adult intoxicated passenger to buckle his/her seat belt at the commencement
of the fare. In this case, if there was a duty of care on Mr. Yaxley
to advise Mr. Stewart be buckled when he entered the taxi cab,
Mr. Yaxley’s failure to carry out his duty in a proper and reasonable manner caused no injury since, as I have found as a fact,
Mr. Stewart was in fact buckled when the taxi cab left the restaurant/bar. There is no evidence that the chime indicating that the
seat belt was or became unbuckled during the fare.
 For the reasons set out above, it would be unreasonable,
and unsafe, to impose a standard of care requiring a greater or
broader responsibility on a taxi driver.
 Specifically, I reject that any reasonable standard of care
would have required Mr. Yaxley to ensure the continued use of
Mr. Stewart’s seat belt after the commencement of the fare. In
the circumstances of this case, it would not have been reasonable
to expect that Mr. Yaxley would, late at night, in snowy, icy road
conditions, monitor whether Mr. Stewart remained buckled during the fare. Driving safely in such conditions was and should
remain his priority.
 I also reject Novex’s submission that Mr. Yaxley should
have ensured Mr. Stewart remained buckled after the unscheduled stop to let a rear passenger exit the taxi cab to get sick on
the roadside. There is no evidence that Mr. Stewart did anything
to suggest he got unbuckled at this stop. There is simply no evidence that would have caused Mr. Yaxley to once again check to
see whether Mr. Stewart remained buckled.
 It is unclear from the evidence when Mr. Stewart unbuckled prior to the MVA. This is a major shortcoming in the evidence
such that, even if this court had found there to be a duty of care
on the taxi driver, the evidence would not have established that
Mr. Yaxley breached his duty of care.