Site icon swarb.co.uk

Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police; 30 Aug 1990

References: 74 OR (2d) 225, 72 DLR (4th) 580, 5 CCLT (2d) 77, [1990] OJ No 1584 (QL), 10 WCB (2d) 577, 1 CRR (2d) 211, 50 CPC (2d) 92, 40 OAC 161, 22 ACWS (3d) 869
Links: Canlii
Coram: O’Leary, Saunders and Moldaver JJ
Ontario – High Court of Justice, Divisional Court – Negligence — Duty of care — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to life, liberty and security — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult — Charter rights violated — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Equality rights — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult — Charter rights violated — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1).
On August 24, 1986, the plaintiff was raped by a serial rapist who subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of sexual assaults including the attack on the plaintiff. All of the attacks occurred within a one-year period in the same vicinity and involved single white women living in second or third floor apartments to which the rapist gained entry through a balcony door. In this action, the plaintiff sued the Chief of Police at the time of the assault, the investigating officers in charge of the case and the Board of Commissioners of Police for damages. The plaintiff alleged a cause of action in tort and a cause of action for violating her rights to security of the person and her right to equal protection under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defendants moved to have the action dismissed as not disclosing a cause of action. The motion was dismissed. Leave having been granted, the defendants appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed and the plaintiff’s action allowed to proceed.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Dec-15 Ref: 556824

Exit mobile version