Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, 2003 SCC 69, 2003 SCC 69 (2003)
Linked as:
Extract
Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, 2003 SCC 69, 2003 SCC 69 (2003)
Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, 2003 SCC 69
Estate of Manish Odhavji, deceased, Pramod Odhavji,Bharti Odhavji and Rahul Odhavji Appellants (Plaintiffs)v.Detective Martin Woodhouse, Detective Constable Philip Gerrits,Officer John Doe, Officer Jane Doe, Metropolitan TorontoChief of Police David Boothby, Metropolitan Toronto PoliceServices Board and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario Respondents (Defendants)and betweenMetropolitan Toronto Chief of Police David Boothby Appellant on cross-appeal v.Estate of Manish Odhavji, deceased, Pramod Odhavji,Bharti Odhavji and Rahul Odhavji Respondents on cross-appeal andAttorney General of Canada, Attorney General ofBritish Columbia, Canadian Civil Liberties Association,Urban Alliance on Race Relations, African CanadianLegal Clinic, Mental Health Legal Committee,Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted andInnocence Project of Osgoode Hall Law School IntervenersIndexed as: Odhavji Estate v. WoodhouseNeutral citation: 2003 SCC 69.File No.: 28425.2003: February 17; 2003: December 5.Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.on appeal from the court of appeal for ontarioPractice - Motion to strike - Police officers involved in fatal shooting -Actions brought by estate and family of victim - Statement of claim alleging misfeasance in public office against police officers and chief of police and negligence against chief of police, police services board and province - Actions based on failure of police officers to cooperate in SIU investigation - Whether portions of statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01(1)(b).Torts - Tort of misfeasance in public office - Chief of police and police officers - Victim killed by police - Police officers involved in shooting not complying with statutory duty to cooperate with SIU investigation - Plaintiffs bringing actions in misfeasance in public office against police officers and chief of police - Whether tort of misfeasance in public office can arise from misconduct involving breaches of statutory duty - Whether tort limited to unlawful exercises of statutory or prerogative powers.Torts - Negligence - Duty of care - Victim killed by police - Police officers involved in shooting not complying with statutory duty to cooperate with SIU investigation - Plaintiffs bringing actions in negligence against chief of police, police services board and province - Whether they owed plaintiffs duty to take reasonable care to ensure that police officers cooperated with investigation.Costs - Court of Appeal's costs award - Plaintiffs submitting that they are public interest litigants and should not have been required to pay costs - Actions involving public authorities and raising issues of public interest insufficient to alter essential nature of litigation - Plaintiffs not falling within definition of public interest litigants - No clear and compelling reasons to interfere with Court of Appeal's decision to award costs in accordance with usual rule that successful party is entitled to costs.O was fatally shot by police officers. The Special Investigation Unit ("SIU") began an investigation. The police officers involved in the incident did not comply with SIU requests that they remain segregated, that they attend interviews on the same day as the shooting, and that they provide shift notes, on-duty clothing, and blood samples in a timely manner. Under s. 113(9) of the Ontario Police Services Act, members of the force are under a statutory obligation to cooperate with SIU investigations and, under s. 41(1), a chief of police is required to ensure that members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The SIU cleared the officers of any wrongdoing. O's estate and family commenced a variety of actions. The statement of claim alleged that the lack of a thorough investigation into the shooting incident had caused them to suffer mental distress, anger, depression and anxiety. They claimed that the officers' failure to cooperate with the SIU gave rise to actions for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the Chief of Police, and to actions for negligence against the Chief, the Metropolitan Toro...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
