Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group W"
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
(1) deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and<br /> | (1) deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and<br /> | ||
(2) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.<br /> | (2) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.<br /> | ||
− | The requirement that the defendant must have been aware that his or her unlawful conduct would harm the plaintiff establishes the required nexus between the parties. A plaintiff must also prove the requirements common to all torts, specifically, that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law."<br />'' | + | ''The requirement that the defendant must have been aware that his or her unlawful conduct would harm the plaintiff establishes the required nexus between the parties. A plaintiff must also prove the requirements common to all torts, specifically, that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law."<br />'''' |
'''''Defendant's motion to strike out statement of claim'''''<br /> | '''''Defendant's motion to strike out statement of claim'''''<br /> |
Revision as of 19:40, 9 February 2014
Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse
Facts
Plaintiff was shot while fleeing from a bank robbery, plaintiff’s family brought at trial (Ontario Court General Division):
- Action against police chief was allowed to proceed (tort of misfeasance in a public office)
- Action against Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board was not (tort of misfeasance in a public office)
- Action against the Province of Ontario was not (tort of misfeasance in a public office) for failing to ensure police officers involved were segregated, provided case notes, clothing and blood samples, and attended interviews with the SIU.
Statement of claim alleges mental distress, anger, depression and anxiety as a consequence of the alleged misconduct, but the plaintiffs will have to prove at trial that the alleged misconduct caused anxiety or depression of sufficient magnitude to warrant compensation.
Defendants also brought motion to strike out Plaintiff's statement of claim based on Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01(1)(b). (which was not successful)
Relevant Provisions
Action against Chief
Police Services Act s.41(1)(b):
41. (1) The duties of a chief of police include,
(a) in the case of a municipal police force, administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities and policies established by the board under subsection 31 (1);
(b) ensuring that members of the police force carry out their duties in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in a manner that reflects the needs of the community, and that discipline is maintained in the police force;
(c) ensuring that the police force provides community-oriented police services;
(d) administering the complaints system in accordance with Part V. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 41 (1); 1995, c. 4, s. 4 (8, 9); 1997, c. 8, s. 27.
Tort of misfeasance in a public office
"The failure of a public officer to perform a statu- tory duty can constitute misfeasance in a public office. Misfeasance is not limited to unlawful exercises of statutory or prerogative powers. It is an intentional tort distinguished by:
(1) deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and
(2) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.
The requirement that the defendant must have been aware that his or her unlawful conduct would harm the plaintiff establishes the required nexus between the parties. A plaintiff must also prove the requirements common to all torts, specifically, that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law."
''
Defendant's motion to strike out statement of claim
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01(1)(b):
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).
(2) No evidence is admissible on a motion,
(a) under clause (1) (a), except with leave of a judge or on consent of the parties;
(b) under clause (1) (b). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (2).
Issue(s)
Analysis
Natural Law - St. Thomas Aquinas
Elements of Valid Law:
- Directed to Common Good - Order Imposed By Law
- Follow Practical Reason
- Must be Made by Valid Lawmaker
- Must be Promulgated
Legal Positivism
Classical Positivism - John Austin
Austin's Three Directives:
- God's law: "revealed" law; province of religion
- Positive morality: norms: manners, customs, club rules, international law, English constitutional law
- Has to be created in accordance with the rule of law making jurisdiction regarding the creation of law (pedigree test) (origin of the rule).
- Positive law: command, issued by superiors to subordinates, backed by sanctions
Post WWII Positivism - HLA Hart
Hart Criteria:
- Primary rules (tell us what is what isn't permitted)
- Secondary rules (rules that allow us to change the rules, adjudicate disputes about the rules, or figure out what the rules are)
- Rule of recognition (rules must be recognized by officials, must be applied by officials, and the officials must believe that they ought to apply them)
Positivist view is that laws are human artifacts, not dependent on moral content for validity, BUT disobedience may be warranted when laws are immoral.