Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board

Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board

Majority held that Canadian law recognizes the tort of negligent investigation: police owe a duty of care to particularized suspects; the applicable standard is that of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances (allowing for investigatory discretion); residual policy concerns do not negate the duty; on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 SCC 41
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Jason George Hill; Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal: Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board; Jack Loft; Andrea McLaughlin; Joseph Stewart; Ian Matthews; Terry Hill
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (civil Action Against Police) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Reasons and Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Investigation, Standard of Care, Proximity, Policy Considerations, Limitation Period, Causation, Compensatory Damages
Source Language
english
Torts Police Law Civil Liability Charter Law Duty of Care Negligent Investigation Standard of Care Proximity +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason George Hill

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board; Jack Loft; Andrea McLaughlin; Joseph Stewart; Ian Matthews; Terry Hill

Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (civil Action Against Police) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Reasons and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police owe a private duty of care to suspects during investigation
  2. 2 Whether Canadian law recognizes the tort of negligent investigation
  3. 3 What standard of care applies to police investigations

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that Canadian law recognizes the tort of negligent investigation: police owe a duty of care to particularized suspects; the applicable standard is that of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances (allowing for investigatory discretion); residual policy concerns do not negate the duty; on the facts the police met the applicable standard and were not negligent; limitation period began on final acquittal so the action was timely.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed (Bastarache, Charron and Rothstein JJ. dissenting on cross-appeal)