Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General)

Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General)

On the evidence the Defendant met the applicable standard of care: professional cleanup and plumbers were engaged as soon as reasonably practicable, security considerations justified not calling external crews in the night for less serious incidents, records corroborate same-day remediation in most instances, plaintiff failed to prove deliberate unlawful conduct for misfeasance, failed to prove s.12 breach or any compensable injury causally linked to Defendants conduct, and Defendants evidence was insufficient to prove the counterclaim against the plaintiff; accordingly the action and counterclaim are dismissed.

Citation
2015 FC 151
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Christopher Brazeau; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Action: Negligence, Misfeasance, Charter and Statutory Prison Conditions Claims / Summary Trial Pursuant to Federal Courts Rule 216 Following Motion Under Rule 369; Final Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed in whole; Defendants counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Misfeasance in Public Office, Section 12 Charter (cruel and Unusual Treatment), Prison Conditions, Duty of Care, Causation, Counterclaim for Property/damage Recovery
Source Language
English
Tort Constitutional Law Administrative Law Corrections Law Negligence Misfeasance in Public Office Section 12 Charter (cruel and Unusual Treatment) Prison Conditions +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Brazeau

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action: Negligence, Misfeasance, Charter and Statutory Prison Conditions Claims / Summary Trial Pursuant to Federal Courts Rule 216 Following Motion Under Rule 369; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the inmate
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants conduct constituted misfeasance in public office
  3. 3 Whether the inmate was subjected to treatment breaching s.12 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Defendant met the applicable standard of care: professional cleanup and plumbers were engaged as soon as reasonably practicable, security considerations justified not calling external crews in the night for less serious incidents, records corroborate same-day remediation in most instances, plaintiff failed to prove deliberate unlawful conduct for misfeasance, failed to prove s.12 breach or any compensable injury causally linked to Defendants conduct, and Defendants evidence was insufficient to prove the counterclaim against the plaintiff; accordingly the action and counterclaim are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed in whole; Defendants counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff

Orders

  • Action dismissed in its entirety
  • Defendants counterclaim dismissed