Aubin v. Canada

Aubin v. Canada

Given the vague and non‑specific intelligence, the refusal by the claimant to accept available protective measures or to identify specific threats, admitted surveillance blind spots and reasonable operational practices, the Court found no breach of the standard of care by correctional staff; additionally the claimant failed to prove that any alleged delay or omission caused the claimed damages, therefore the claim is dismissed.

Citation
2005 FC 812
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Roger Aubin; Respondent/defendant: Her Majesty the Queen (Crown)
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim Against the Crown (negligence) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Order)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, State/crown Liability, Prisoner Safety, Causation, Medical Treatment/delay
Source Language
French
Tort Law Administrative Law Correctional Law Civil Liability Negligence Duty of Care State/crown Liability Prisoner Safety +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Aubin

Applicant/plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Claim Against the Crown (negligence) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Crown/Service owe a duty of care to the prisoner?
  2. 2 Did correctional staff breach that duty by failing to prevent or promptly stop the assault?
  3. 3 Was there unreasonable delay in ambulance/medical care and did any delay cause further injury?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the vague and non‑specific intelligence, the refusal by the claimant to accept available protective measures or to identify specific threats, admitted surveillance blind spots and reasonable operational practices, the Court found no breach of the standard of care by correctional staff; additionally the claimant failed to prove that any alleged delay or omission caused the claimed damages, therefore the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Defendant may file submissions on costs within ten (10) court days of the date of this decision