Carr v. Canada, (2009) 346 F.T.R. 298 (FC)

JudgeRussell, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 31, 2009
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (FC);2009 FC 576

Carr v. Can. (2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.013

Barry Carr (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant)

(T-62-06; 2009 FC 576)

Indexed As: Carr v. Canada

Federal Court

Russell, J.

June 2, 2009.

Summary:

The plaintiff inmate suffered injuries, including post traumatic stress disorder, after being assaulted by another inmate in a maximum security institution. The plaintiff brought a negligence action for damages against the federal Crown, claiming that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) was negligent.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a judgment reported (2008), 339 F.T.R. 50, found CSC liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable steps, in both its static and dynamic security to prevent the assault, where CSC officers had knowledge of pre-indicators of violence (verbal confrontation between the plaintiff and his assailant). The Prothonotary awarded $12,000 general damages. The federal Crown appealed the finding of negligence.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 2583

Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court found the Crown (Correctional Service of Canada) negligent in a simplified action at trial - The Crown appealed - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was as follows: "on questions of law the standard is correctness while factual findings should only be disturbed if a palpable and overriding error is found ... Where the legal aspect cannot be separated from a question of mixed fact and law, then palpable and overriding error is again the appropriate standard" - See paragraph 92.

Prisons - Topic 45

General - Duties of prison officers - Protection of prisoners - [See Prisons - Topic 441 ].

Prisons - Topic 441

Actions against prison officers and authorities - Tort/Quebec responsibility - General - An inmate (Carr) was in line to use the telephone in the institution recreation area - After waiting 1.5 hours, another inmate jumped in front of Carr - A profanity laced verbal altercation ensued and they brushed shoulders - The other inmate backed off and Carr thought it was over - He neither suspected further trouble, nor advised a correctional officer - After finishing his call, Carr was assaulted by the other inmate in the telephone area, which did not have video surveillance - Carr alleged that the officer assigned to the observation gallery overlooking the recreation area had to have heard the original verbal altercation - That officer did not testify - Another officer heard the assault and gave a direct order for the other inmate to stop - The attack lasted less than 38 seconds - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court held that Correctional Services Canada (CSC) was liable in negligence - The Prothonotary inferred that the officer who did not testify must have heard the verbal altercation, which was a pre-indicator of violence - The CSC failed to take reasonable steps (such as video surveillance), in light of pre-indicators of violence, to prevent or minimize the assault - The Federal Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, stating that "the Prothonotary was correct to state that reasonable foreseeability ... depended upon the pre-indicators of violence that should have been observed by line-of-sight surveillance and that, in deciding whether adequate precautions had been taken, the lack of camera surveillance was at least one factor that should be taken into account" - The Prothonotary did not err in finding negligence "because there were pre-indicators of violence that should have been reasonably evident in CSC's 'static and dynamic' security measures" - Although one might disagree with some of the Prothonotary's fact findings, there was no palpable and overriding error in those findings.

Prisons - Topic 2521

Negligence - Prison authorities and staff - Standard of care - [See Prisons - Topic 441 ].

Torts - Topic 9164

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Prison authorities - [See Prisons - Topic 441 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 19].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Beattie v. Canada (2005), 274 F.T.R. 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Giroux v. Canada (2001), 210 F.T.R. 63 (T.D.), affd. [2002] N.R. Uned. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Grenier v. Canada (2004), 262 F.T.R. 94 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Timm v. Canada, [1965] Ex. C.R. 174, refd to. [para. 22].

MacLean v. Canada, [1972] S.C.J. No. 69, refd to. [para. 22].

Abbott v. Canada (1993), 64 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hodgin v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1999), 218 N.B.R.(2d) 164; 558 A.P.R. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Coumont v. Canada et al. (1994), 77 F.T.R. 253 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Eng v. Canada et al. (1997), 129 F.T.R. 25 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Iwanicki v. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) et al., [2000] O.T.C. 181 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Russell v. Canada et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 276 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Corner v. Canada, [2002] O.T.C. 986 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Miclash v. Canada (2003), 227 F.T.R. 116; 2003 FCT 113 (Protho.), refd to. [para. 22].

Bastarache v. Canada (2003), 243 F.T.R. 274; 2003 FC 1463, refd to. [para. 22].

Hamilton v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2001] O.T.C. 617 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 69; 429 W.A.C. 69 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Levasseur v. Canada, [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 853 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Chippewas of Kettle & Stony Point First Nation v. Shawkence, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A20 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, refd to. [para. 47].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 14; 246 W.A.C. 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Stewart v. Pettie et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 131; 177 N.R. 297; 162 A.R. 241; 83 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

Scott v. Canada, [1985] F.C.J. No. 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Raby v. Canada, [1981] F.C.J. No. 423 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333, refd to. [para. 61].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 61].

Wild v. Correctional Service of Canada (2004), 256 F.T.R. 240; 2004 FC 942, refd to. [para. 77].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 297, para. 6.321 [para. 79].

Counsel:

John L. Hill, for the plaintiff;

Sharon McGovern and Philippe Alma, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

John L. Hill, Cobourg, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard on March 31, 2009, at Toronto, Ontario, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 2, 2009.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Adams et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2015 ABQB 527
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 14 d5 Novembro d5 2014
    ...the CSC knew or ought to have known of the risk of the assault: Carr v Canada , 2008 FC 1416 , 339 FTR 50 at para 15 [ Carr ], aff'd 2009 FC 576, 346 FTR 298 ; Coumont at paras 38-39; Bastarache at para 23; Russell at para 6. [23] In this case, the mandate and governing legislation of t......
  • Neeson v. Canada, (2012) 403 F.T.R. 296 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 19 d4 Janeiro d4 2012
    ...(2003), 243 F.T.R. 274 ; 2003 FC 1463 , refd to. [para. 20]. Carr v. Canada (2008), 339 F.T.R. 50 ; 2008 FC 1416 (Protho.), affd. (2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (F.C.), refd to. [para. John L. Hill, for the plaintiff; Derek Edwards, for the defendant. Solicitors of Record: John L. Hill, Cobourg......
  • Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 151
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 5 d4 Fevereiro d4 2015
    ...; 261 W.A.C. 268 ; 2001 SCC 79 , refd to. [para. 19]. Timm v. Canada, [1965] 1 Ex C.R. 174 , refd to. [para. 20]. Carr v. Canada (2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (F.C.), refd to. [para. Abbott v. Canada (1993), 64 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20]. Bastarache v. Canada (2003), 243 F.T.R. 27......
  • Fontenelle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 6604
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 2 d4 Novembro d4 2017
    ...policy, a routinely predictable period of unsupervised freedom for inmates during staff shift changes, and -- perhaps -- Carr v. Canada, 2009 FC 576, where as-yet-unassessed inmates accessing a telephone room that was in high demand created a "highly-charged atmosphere" requiring much close......
4 cases
  • Adams et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2015 ABQB 527
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 14 d5 Novembro d5 2014
    ...the CSC knew or ought to have known of the risk of the assault: Carr v Canada , 2008 FC 1416 , 339 FTR 50 at para 15 [ Carr ], aff'd 2009 FC 576, 346 FTR 298 ; Coumont at paras 38-39; Bastarache at para 23; Russell at para 6. [23] In this case, the mandate and governing legislation of t......
  • Neeson v. Canada, (2012) 403 F.T.R. 296 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 19 d4 Janeiro d4 2012
    ...(2003), 243 F.T.R. 274 ; 2003 FC 1463 , refd to. [para. 20]. Carr v. Canada (2008), 339 F.T.R. 50 ; 2008 FC 1416 (Protho.), affd. (2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (F.C.), refd to. [para. John L. Hill, for the plaintiff; Derek Edwards, for the defendant. Solicitors of Record: John L. Hill, Cobourg......
  • Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 151
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 5 d4 Fevereiro d4 2015
    ...; 261 W.A.C. 268 ; 2001 SCC 79 , refd to. [para. 19]. Timm v. Canada, [1965] 1 Ex C.R. 174 , refd to. [para. 20]. Carr v. Canada (2009), 346 F.T.R. 298 (F.C.), refd to. [para. Abbott v. Canada (1993), 64 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20]. Bastarache v. Canada (2003), 243 F.T.R. 27......
  • Fontenelle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 6604
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 2 d4 Novembro d4 2017
    ...policy, a routinely predictable period of unsupervised freedom for inmates during staff shift changes, and -- perhaps -- Carr v. Canada, 2009 FC 576, where as-yet-unassessed inmates accessing a telephone room that was in high demand created a "highly-charged atmosphere" requiring much close......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT