RCMP |
Watson v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
T-1227-00
2003 FC 1377, Hargrave P.
21/11/03
20 pp.
Action claiming agreed damages for injury to plaintiff-- Case raises various questions including, liability of police officer arising out of collision during pursuit--Given matter litigated in criminal law context, resulting in various convictions, whether there are any circumstances allowing this Court to re-hear and decide outcome anew--Supreme Court of Canada stated in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77 that to ignore earlier proceeding would be abuse of process, to be avoided in interests of integrity of adjudicative function of courts--In case at bar, earlier proceeding came from Alberta Provincial Court, which convicted plaintiff of dangerous driving and ordered restitution for damage done to police vehicle at conclusion of pursuit, pursuit and ensuing accident giving rise to present claim for damages by plaintiff--As to liability of Crown, pursuant to Alberta Highway Traffic Act (Act), s. 68.1, police vehicle, with its siren operating, has various liberties, including exceeding speed limits and contravention of rules of road "where, considering the circumstances, it is reasonable and safe to do so"--However, pursuant to s. 68.1(6), none of liberties permit operator of vehicle to act, considering circumstances, in negligent manner--Police officers justified in using as much force as required in pursuit situation, always keeping in mind most reasonable and least violent means of pursuing and catching someone should be paramount-- Generally cases interpret right of pursuit decidedly in favour of police and liability decidedly against pursued vehicle-- However, there must be balance between duty to apprehend and duty of care not only to public, but also to fleeing suspect --In case at bar and on basis of Blaz v. Dickinson (1996), 23 M.V.R. (3d) 70 (Ont. Gen. Div.), duty of care owed to plaintiff composed of care and skill reasonable in circumstances, but must keep in mind what required not counsel of perfection, but rather exercise of statutory duties in way consistent with care for safety of others--Considering all of circumstances and substantial representative case law, no negligence or any contributory factor on part of police in case at bar--As to earlier criminal conviction and abuse of process, Clozza J., in earlier criminal proceeding, emphasized plaintiff author of his own injury--Clozza J. also awarded restitution to Crown for damage to police car--In order to find any liability on part of Crown, for actions of police, necessary to make findings contrary to those expressed by Clozza J.--Instances where relitigation permitted involved taint by fraud or dishonesty, new evidence, or when fairness dictated original results should not be binding in new context--None of these exceptions applies in present case--On basis of C.U.P.E., Local 79, Court not interfering with Clozza J.'s findings--Action dismissed--Alberta Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-7, s. 68.1.