Canada Case Law

British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Chatterton

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the chambers judge reasonably exercised her discretion in refusing summary judgment: the applicability of Police Act s.11(1)(a) required a full statutory interpretive exercise (including the Agreement and Sulz precedent) and factual development, making it not plain and obvious that the plaintiff was bound to lose; under a deferential standard of review there is no basis for appellate interference.

Source excerpt

• Vicarious liability
• Provincial liability for police constables
• Police act s.11(1)(a)
• Rcmp-province provincial police service agreement
• Summary judgment (r.9-6) standard

Read case analysis

Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Parts 1 and 3 of the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim were struck out with leave to amend because the pleadings contained substantial amounts of evidence and unnecessary material and failed to concisely plead material facts and the specific elements required to meet statutory immunities and vicarious liability issues; summary judgment was denied because affidavit evidence was inadequate, hearsay concerns and disputed records created genuine issues for trial; security for costs was denied because plaintiff's impecuniosity and steps taken to address finances made an order disproportionate…

Source excerpt

• Striking pleadings
• Summary judgment
• Security for costs
• Vicarious liability
• Statutory immunity
• Mental health act detention

Read case analysis

Lover-Peace v. Erickson

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the NOCC, while containing prolix, evidentiary and irrelevant material, nonetheless discloses reasonable causes of action and was wrongly struck in its entirety; the correct remedy was to strike specified irrelevant and evidentiary portions under R.9-5(1)(b), set aside the abuse of process finding under R.9-5(1)(d), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court with directions to file an amended NOCC within 30 days.

Source excerpt

• Striking pleadings
• Abuse of process
• Leave to amend
• Negligence
• Intentional infliction of mental suffering
• Charter s.7

Read case analysis

Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal from case planning conference orders was denied, and the no-fee application was also dismissed, because the proposed appeal lacked merit and would delay trial.

• Leave to appeal
• Case management/case planning conference
• Particulars and pleadings
• Examinations for discovery
• No-fee application under court of appeal rules r.85(6)
• Vicarious liability

Read case analysis

D.C. v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The court held that military police do not owe a private law duty of care to the appellants because the duties of police are owed to the public as a whole, the appellants failed to establish the required proximity or to bring themselves within the narrow Jane Doe duty-to-warn exception, they did not properly plead systemic issues that would alter the analysis, and therefore the Federal Court correctly granted summary judgment under Rule 215 for the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Police investigations
• Summary judgment (rule 215)
• Public duty doctrine
• Duty to warn (jane doe exception)

Read case analysis

O'Driscoll v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed: the Commissioner's non-response and the OISP internal review were not reviewable matters under s.18.1 because they did not affect the appellant's legal rights, impose legal obligations, or cause prejudicial effects; subsection 5(1) of the RCMP Act and common law police duties do not create a positive legal duty to the appellant enforceable by mandamus; mandamus was therefore not available.

Source excerpt

• Reviewability under federal courts act s.18.1
• Public legal duty
• Mandamus requirements (apotex)
• Rcmp complaints process (crcc)
• Internal administrative review
• Standing

Read case analysis

McCormack v. Evans

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a civil action challenging wiretap-based charges, holding the intercepts were admissible and the police had reasonable grounds.

• Malicious prosecution
• Negligent investigation
• Misfeasance in public office
• Wiretap admissibility
• Informer privilege
• Section 8 charter

Read case analysis

Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

At a case planning conference, the court ordered amended document redactions and required the plaintiff to plead particulars of alleged RCMP torts, while refusing broader discovery and settlement directions.

• Case management
• Document discovery and redactions
• Examinations for discovery
• Particulars and pleading sufficiency
• Operations manual disclosure
• Trial scheduling and mode

Read case analysis

Naugle v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the facts the arresting officer lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for obstruction; because the arrest was unlawful the statutory justification in s.25(1) could not apply and the officer's application of force was excessive, giving rise to civil liability for tortious battery and findings of Charter ss.7 and 9 breaches; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Obstruction (criminal code s.129)
• Warrantless arrest (criminal code s.495(1))
• Use of force justification (criminal code s.25(1))
• Tortious battery
• Charter ss.7 and 9
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

Shanthakumar Estate v. Canada Border Services Agency

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the facts the arresting officers acted unreasonably by relying on unverified CPIC hits despite respondents' statements, absence of urgency, and opportunity to verify; failure to verify undermined reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and continued detention, rendering the officers negligent and, as to Mr. Mylabathula, in breach of s.9; the standard of care articulated by the trial judge was consistent with criminal and civil law and was properly applied; appeal dismissed with costs to respondents.

Source excerpt

• Wrongful arrest
• Use of cpic database
• Reasonable and probable grounds for arrest
• Standard of care for police
• Arbitrary detention (s.9 charter)
• Statute of limitations under customs act s.106(1)

Read case analysis