Bartley v. Ontario

Bartley v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2007-03-29 Neutral citation 2007 ONCA 227 Docket numbers C45454 Judges Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Bartley v. Ontario, 2007 ONCA 227 DATE: 20070329 DOCKET: C45454 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: BARBARA A. BARTLEY, DOUGLAS J. LEACH, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, PAFCO INSURANCE COMPANY AND PEMBRIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY (Applicants/Appellants) – and – HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (Respondent/Respondent in Appeal) BEFORE: LABROSSE, LANG and ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: Eugene Meehan, Q.C., Marie-France Major and Mila Robin for the appellants Sean Hanley and Stephen F. McNamee for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: March 27, 2007 On appeal from the order of Justice Charles Hackland of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 27, 2006. ENDORSEMENT [1] The main issue on this appeal is whether the province’s policy of seeking compensation for fire services fees from persons involved in motor vehicle accidents violates s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In concise reasons, the application judge held that it did not. [2] The appellants’ attempt to establish their s. 7 argument on the basis that the province’s policy deprives them of their life, liberty and security of the person. To demonstrate this, the appellants argue that the policy delays or interferes with a person’s access to essential health care services. In essence, they argue that if members of the public know that they may have to pay a fee for the services provided by a municipal fire department, they may be disinclined to call for such services when they need them, putting theirs’ and other people’s lives in danger. [3] The application judge rejected this argument as he found that the appellants’ assertion was not supported by the evidence. We agree with the application judge that there is no evidence (or any evidence from which to draw a reasonable inference) in the record reasonably capable of supporting the appellants’ argument and that they have not established that there is a violation of life, liberty or security of the person. [4] Moreover, in the context of this case, the application judge correctly concluded that s. 7 of the Charter does not protect purely economic interests at stake in civil actions. [5] The courts have consistently affirmed the Crown’s right to make these claims. Persons involved in motor vehicle accidents are not subject to an absolute liability to compensate the province for the costs of fire department services. In any given case, the province would have to establish, through the court process, that the individual was liable (either due to negligence or on some other basis). As the application judge noted, persons sued by the province would be able to raise any defence available to them. The process fully accords with the principles of fundamental justice. [6] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000, all inclusive. “J.M. Labrosse J.A.” “S.E. Lang J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.”