CITATION: Reynolds v. Kingston (Police
Services Board), 2007 ONCA 166
DATE: 20070314
DOCKET: C45999
B E T W E E N : |
|
LOUISE REYNOLDS |
Peter C. Wardle and |
- and - |
|
THE CITY
OF KINGSTON POLICE SERVICES BOARD, BRIAN BEGBIE, ANDREW BIRD, HARVEY
KELLER, BILL KENNEDY, CHRIS BARRETT, THOMAS GOODFELLOW, DR. CHARLES
SMITH and DR. ROBERT WOOD |
W. Niels F. Ortved and Sheila R. Block and Kim Twohig and |
Heard: February 12, 2007 |
On appeal from the order of the
[1] On
June 26, 1997 the appellant, Louise Reynolds, was charged with the second
degree murder of her seven year old daughter Sharon. It would be almost
two years until she was released on bail pending her trial. Pursuant to
a warrant under the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, the respondent,
Dr. Charles Smith, a pediatric pathologist, had earlier conducted a post mortem examination
on the body of
[2] It
was on the basis of Dr. Smith’s opinion of the cause of
[3] Following
the preliminary hearing, on the recommendation of the Deputy Chief Coroner
for
[4] Based on the result of the second autopsy, on January 25, 2001, the Crown withdrew the second degree murder charge against Ms. Reynolds. She had been in custody for exactly twenty‑two months from the date of her arrest until April 26, 1999, when she was granted judicial interim release on very stringent terms. During this period, her other children were removed from her care by the authorities.
[5] Shortly
after the Crown withdrew the murder charge, Ms. Reynolds commenced this
proceeding against the City of
[6] The central focus of Ms. Reynolds’ claim against Dr. Smith is also based on negligent investigation. She alleges that he performed the initial autopsy negligently, recklessly and in bad faith, with the view to securing a conviction. In addition, she relies on the emerging tort of misfeasance in a public office, alleging deliberate unlawful conduct on the part of Dr. Smith in the exercise of his public functions under the Coroners Act. It is evident from the statement of claim that Ms. Reynolds’ claim against Dr. Smith is based on what he did or failed to do, and not in respect to his testimony at her preliminary hearing.
[7] Relying on the witness immunity rule, Dr. Smith moved pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out Ms. Reynolds’ statement of claim on the ground that “it discloses no reasonable cause of action”. In dismissing the respondent’s motion, Coo J. concluded “that it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s claim is doomed to failure as it has been cast in this action”. Before Coo J., the appellant’s statement of claim did not include a claim based on the tort of misfeasance in a public office. Master Egan subsequently granted the appellant leave to amend her statement of claim to add a claim based on this tort.
[8] Dr. Smith
was successful in his appeal to the
[9] Before considering the reasons of O’Driscoll J. and Wilson J., it will be helpful to make a brief reference to the test that applies on a rule 21.01(1)(b) motion and to the witness immunity rule.
[10] Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, is the leading case on when a statement of claim, or portions of it, may be struck out on the ground that it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. As such, it deals with the substantive adequacy of a claim. On behalf of the Supreme Court, at p. 980 Wilson J. articulated the following test:
Thus, the test
in Canada governing the application of provisions like Rule 19(24)(a) of
the British Columbia Rules of Court is the
same as the one that governs an application under R.S.C. O. 18, r. 19:
assuming that the facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved,
is it “plain and obvious” that the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses
no reasonable cause of action? As in
[11] Earlier, at p. 972, Wilson J. observed:
…Thus, the fact that the plaintiff’s case was a complicated one could not justify striking out the statement of claim. Complex matters that disclosed substantive questions of law were most appropriately addressed at trial where evidence concerning the facts could be led and where arguments about the merits of a plaintiff’s case could be made.
The requirement that it be “plain and obvious” that some or all of the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action before it can be struck out, as well as the proposition that it is singularly inappropriate to use the rule’s summary procedure to prevent a party from proceeding to trial on the grounds that the action raises difficult questions, has been affirmed repeatedly in the last century. [Citations omitted.]
[12] Wilson J. concluded as follows at pp. 990‑991:
The fact that a pleading reveals “an arguable, difficult or important point of law” cannot justify striking out part of the statement of claim. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that where a statement of claim reveals a difficult and important point of law, it may well be critical that the action be allowed to proceed. Only in this way can we be sure that the common law in general, and the law of torts in particular, will continue to evolve to meet the legal challenges that arise in our modern industrial society.
[13] The “plain and obvious” test has been followed consistently in Ontario in cases such as R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd. v. Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 778 (C.A.); Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobaced Ltd. (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 699 (C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 196 D.L.R. (4th) vii; Folland v. Ontario (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 89 (C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 229 D.L.R. (4th) vi; Bendix Foreign Exchange Corp. v. Integrated Payment Systems Canada Inc. (2005) 18 C.P.C. (6th) 15 (Ont. C.A.); Freeman‑Maloy v. Marsden (2006), 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 267 D.L.R. (4th) ix. These cases stand for the proposition that at the interlocutory stage of proceedings the court should not dispose of matters of law that are not fully settled in the jurisprudence. Such issues should be decided at trial on the basis of a full evidentiary record.
[14] The
absolute immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent liability for
their testimony in judicial proceedings developed in early English cases
and is well established at common law. Any communication, even perjured
testimony, made in the course of a judicial proceeding, cannot serve as the
basis for a suit in tort. The rationale for witness immunity, which has
become less an evidentiary rule than a rule of substantive law, is that the
proper administration of justice requires full and free disclosure from witnesses
unhampered by fear of retaliatory lawsuits. See, e.g., Samuel
Manu‑Tech Inc. v. Redipac Recycling Corp. (1999), 38 C.P.C. (4th)
297 (Ont.
[15] Before
the
[16] In his reasons for judgment, O’Driscoll J. discussed the origins and applications of the witness immunity rule, considered whether the rule applied in criminal cases, considered the “width and the breadth” of the rule, the test of necessity with regard to the rule and, very briefly, whether the rule applied to the tort of misfeasance in a public office.
[17] O’Driscoll J.’s reasons for allowing the appeal and dismissing Ms. Reynolds’ claim against Dr. Smith are contained in paras. 29 to 32:
In my view, on the facts admitted for the purpose of this motion, Dr. Smith’s post-mortem examination, his oral communication to the Kingston Police of his opinion of the cause of death, his post-mortem report, Dr. Smith’s testimony at the preliminary inquiry are all inextricably bound together such that it is not possible to distinguish between a claim for negligent investigation and a claim for negligent testimony.
Having been served with a warrant under the Coroners
Act, Dr. Smith was required by law to conduct a post-mortem examination
on the body of
On this record, I come to the same conclusion as reached in Elliott (supra) – the witness immunity rule applies to the negligence claim against the defendant – here Dr. Smith – a witness who testified in an earlier proceeding and who is now being sued on that earlier testimony and/or a post mortem report that he was required by law to prepare.
Having reached that conclusion, in my view, it is “plain and obvious” that the Plaintiff cannot succeed on the negligence claim against Dr. Smith. See: Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 (S.C.C.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, 976. [Emphasis added.]
[18] Having dismissed Ms. Reynolds’ claim in negligence, in paras. 33 and 34, without any analysis, O’Driscoll J. also dismissed her claim for misfeasance in a public office:
As quoted earlier, in Samuel Manu-Tech (supra) at
para. 20 it is stated that the doctrine of witness immunity “extends to any
action, however framed and is not limited to actions of defamation”. See
also: Lowe v. Guarantee Company of
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s action based on the allegation of misfeasance in public office cannot succeed because the Hunt v. Carey test has once again been met.
[19] In her dissenting reasons, Wilson J. explained that Ms. Reynolds was not suing Dr. Smith with respect to the testimony he gave at Ms. Reynolds’ preliminary hearing. Wilson J. interpreted the allegations against Dr. Smith in the statement of claim as having negligently performed the initial autopsy in bad faith, with a view to securing a conviction, and having engaged in misfeasance in a public office. At para. 53, she stated:
There is no case in
As it emanated from the dismissal of a rule 21.01(1)(b) motion, she characterized the appeal as raising questions of law with respect to the scope of the witness immunity rule, and whether the legal components of the tort of misfeasance in a public office had been pleaded.
[20] Justice Wilson
engaged in a lengthy review of English and Canadian authorities that have
considered the application of the witness immunity rule in a variety of factual
situations. In para. 112, she concluded that the authorities demonstrate
that the law with respect to the scope of witness immunity is not settled
in
[21] Justice Wilson’s reasons for dismissing the appeal are to be found at paras. 130 to 132:
The law with respect to witness immunity and absolute privilege has evolved and continues to evolve. The courts have not examined the provisions of the Coroners Act that define the duties and limit the privilege afforded to someone like Dr. Smith. The determination of the boundaries of witness immunity, and the distinction between investigation and testimony in this specific context, involve nuanced questions of fact.
The determination of unsettled legal issues should
be made only in the context of a full factual record, possibly including
appropriate expert evidence: see Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (2000),
49 O.R. (3d) 699, 188 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (
For all these reasons, I am not satisfied that the defendant Dr. Smith has proved that it is “plain and obvious” in law that witness immunity applies to all acts and reports provided by Dr. Smith related to the autopsy. I would therefore dismiss the appeal from the decision of Justice Coo.
[22] In addition, Wilson J. would have dismissed Dr. Smith’s appeal from Master Egan’s order granting Ms. Reynolds leave to amend her statement of claim to add a claim based on the tort of misfeasance in a public office. The added claim raised the issue whether a medical practioner who performs an autopsy at the request of a coroner is a public officer, or acts as an agent of the coroner. Justice Wilson stated that this issue has not been determined by any court in this province. In para. 145, Wilson J. expressed her agreement with the conclusion of Master Egan that “it is not beyond all doubt that the claim that Dr. Smith is a public officer is impossible of success”.
[23] The
only issue on this appeal is whether, in striking out Ms. Reynolds’ claims
against Dr. Smith, the majority of the
[24] In my view, it is important to keep in mind that the court is dealing with a pleading motion brought by Dr. Smith who contends that it is plain and obvious that the respondent’s statement of claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. As such, this issue is to be determined on the basis of the pleadings that, for the motion, are taken to be accurate and capable of proof. Following this analysis, I have no doubt that the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action constituting the torts of negligence and misfeasance in a public office. There is no radical defect in the pleading of the elements of either tort. Dr. Smith contends that the claims cannot succeed because he is the beneficiary of the witness immunity rule. In my view, this is different from contending that a statement of claim is not substantively adequate. Probably it would have been more appropriate had the appellant’s claims been attacked on a Rule 20 motion for summary judgment. However, in my view the result of such motion would have been the same as it would have been clear that there was a genuine issue for trial in respect to the application of the witness immunity rule as this would be for the trial judge to determine on the basis of a complete factual record.
[25] As
I have mentioned, the majority of the Divisional Court, without any analysis,
allowed the appeal from Master Egan’s order granting leave to the appellant
to amend her statement of claim to plead the tort of misfeasance in a public
office on the ground that “the allegation of misfeasance in public office
cannot succeed because the Hunt v. Carey test has once again been
met”. In Freeman‑Maloy, supra, applying Odhavji Estate
v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 26 Sharpe J.A. stated
that “[a]lthough the tort of misfeasance in a public office has deep roots
in the history of the common law, it is constantly evolving”. Given the
permissive right to amend pleadings in rule 26.01, in my view the majority
of the
[26] For
all of the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order
of the
“S. Borins J.A.”
“I agree J. C. MacPherson J.A.”
“I agree R. G. Juriansz J.A.”
[1]