[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-13
Parole
Action for damages founded in torts of malfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, negligence—Inmate alleging under pressure to have wife smuggle drugs into penitentiary—Accusing plaintiff of being one of three men to threaten wife while on parole—Inmate stabbed after wife’s alleged refusal to deliver package—Security intelligence officer reporting to parole officer fact of inmate stabbing, threat to wife, allegation of plaintiff’s involvement—Parole officer, supervisor suspending plaintiff’s day parole, returning plaintiff to penitentiary—Parole Board of Canada finding inconsistencies in evidence regarding incident with inmate’s wife, cancelling suspension of day parole—Whether parole officers acting maliciously towards plaintiff, meeting reasonable standard pursuant to Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (CCRA)—Parole officers acting within scope of duties, not malicious towards plaintiff—However, decision to suspend day parole not necessarily correct or reasonable—Necessary within statutory scheme of CCRA, s. 135 to determine standard of care of parole officers to suspend day parole—Based on Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129 (Hill), proximity existing in relationship between parole officers, plaintiff as parole officers knowing that actions could result in harm to plaintiff—Parole officers owing duty of care to plaintiff—Analogizing duty of care of police officers as described in Hill to parole officers, duty of care owed by parole officers one in which discretion exercised but within bounds of reasonableness—In present case, no attempt made by parole officers to determine accuracy of allegations, obtain confirmation of facts—Parole officers having several options available—Requirement to protect society as paramount consideration pursuant to CCRA, s. 3.1 modified, qualified by other CCRA provisions—Any standard of care of parole officers similar to that of investigating officer—Question to be answered with respect to causes of action whether decision by parole officers reasonable in all circumstances—Parole officers overzealous in response to inmate’s allegations, resulting in unintentional harm to plaintiff—Not recklessly indifferent or wilfully blind to plaintiff’s circumstances—Overzealous action in belief that parole officers protecting public not justifying false imprisonment—Plaintiff entitled to damages—Parole officers in sufficiently proximate relationship with plaintiff, failing to take steps available to them, negligent in conduct of duties—Action allowed.
Hermiz v. Canada (T-828-09, 2013 FC 288, Aalto P., order dated March 19, 2013, 50 pp.)