Court of Appeal

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Peter M.S. Bryson

Appeal Heard:

January 19, 2016, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Negligence – duty of care – duties of police. Practice – motion to strike pleadings.

Summary:

Respondents sued RCMP for failing to prevent motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by deceased, Ralph Michael Coady.  Statement of claim alleged Coady vehicle was seen driving erratically.  Police were informed and encountered Coady at a parking lot, but allowed him to proceed.  Accident ensued.

Respondents asserted that RCMP were negligent because they knew or should have known that Coady or his vehicle were not fit to drive.  RCMP brought motion to strike, arguing no duty of care was owed, relying on Anns/Cooper test that no duty was owed because:

(1) accident was not foreseeable;

(2) no proximity between respondents and RCMP;

(3) residual policy concerns should negate any prima facie duty. 

Chambers judge dismissed RCMP’s motion.  RCMP appealed.

Issues:

(1)        Was the relationship between respondents and RCMP one in which a duty of care had previously been recognized or was it analogous to one that had been previously recognized?

(2)        If not, was the accident a foreseeable consequence of the alleged acts or omissions of the RCMP?

(3)        Was there proximity between the RCMP and the respondents?

(4)        Did residual policy concerns negate any prima facie duty of care?

Result:

Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.  Although no duty of care had previously been recognized in the relationship alleged here, the accident was a foreseeable consequence of the alleged acts and omission of the RCMP.  Proximity was potentially established between the respondents and the RCMP through their contact with Coady.  Residual policy considerations were speculative at this stage of the proceeding.  Whether a duty of care arose on the facts was a triable issue.