Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board

Hill recognised the tort of negligent investigation in Canada. Police investigating a suspect owe a duty of care to that suspect; the standard is the reasonable officer in the circumstances.

Hill was wrongly identified, charged, and ultimately acquitted of robbery. He sued the police, alleging negligent investigation: photo line-up procedures were defective, exculpatory evidence was disregarded, and the investigation lacked diligence.

(1) Do police owe a duty of care to a suspect they are investigating? (2) If so, what is the standard?

Yes — duty recognised. On the facts, no breach.

Police owe a duty of care to a particularised suspect under investigation. The standard is that of a reasonable police officer in the circumstances, taking into account the discretion required by the office. Honest mistakes do not breach the standard; negligent ones may.

McLachlin CJ applied Cooper. Stage 1 was met: the suspect-investigator relationship is one of close and direct proximity, with reasonably foreseeable harm. Stage 2 policy concerns (chilling effect, indeterminate liability, conflict with public duties) were considered but found insufficient to negate the duty. The standard accommodates the realities of policing.

First common-law jurisdiction to recognise the tort of negligent investigation. Sets the standard at reasonable-officer-in-the-circumstances, distinguished from US doctrine which generally bars such claims.

Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 SCR 129.

McLachlin CJ, Bastarache J, Binnie J, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Charron J, Rothstein J