Martin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (2000) 265 N.R. 208 (FCA)

• Judge: Richard, C.J., Décary and Noël, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 265 N.R. 208 (FCA)

Martin v. MEI (2000), 265 N.R. 208 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. NO.075

Louise Martin, André Martin and Michel Martin, minor by their Litigation Guardian, Louise Martin (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada by her Minister of Employment and Immigration (respondent)

(A-224-99)

Indexed As: Martin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Appeal

Richard, C.J., Décary and Noël, JJ.A.

November 14, 2000.

Summary:

Philip was a landed immigrant subject to a deportation order. After a stay of the order was lifted but before the order was executed, Philip was convicted of sexually assaulting, kidnapping and assaulting Martin. Martin sued the Minister in negligence for failing to: execute Philip's removal order, detain Philip pending his removal, and protect her. Martin's minor children claimed for damages for loss of care, guidance and companionship from their mother.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 166 F.T.R. 35, dis­missed the action but provisionally as­sessed damages. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 1561

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - General - Philip was a landed immigrant subject to a deportation order - After a stay of the order was lifted but before the order was executed, Philip was convicted of sexually assaulting, kid­napping and assaulting Martin - Martin sued the Minister in negligence for failing to: execute Philip's removal order, detain Philip pending his removal, and protect her - The trial judge dismissed the action - The judge held that the Minister did not owe Martin a private law duty of care - Martin belonged to a very broad class of young, single women living in the London, Ontario region who frequented bars, which was insufficient to create a proximity relationship - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - [See Crown - Topic 1561 ].

Counsel:

Lou Anne Farrell and David Waites, for the appellants;

Dale Yurka and Cheryl Kerr, for the re­spondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lerner & Associates, London, Ontario, for the appellants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 14, 2000, by Richard, C.J., Décary and Noël, JJ.A, of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered from the bench at Toronto, Ontario, on November 14, 2000, by Noël, J.A.