Case information

Damages — Civil liability — Whether lower courts’ interpretation of CCRA and statutory instruments requires clarification by Supreme Court to guarantee uniform application nationally — Whether lower courts erred in law by focussing on analysis of lawfulness of Attorney General of Canada’s decisions (that is, respect for normative framework) rather than assessing civil liability of Attorney General of Canada according to common law principles — Whether lower courts erred in assessing applicable standard of conduct by giving excessive deference to Correctional Service Canada in regards to analysis of risk of re offending — Whether lower courts’ analysis with respect to causal connection test had effect of conferring immunity on state that Parliament neither provided for nor intended — Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

An individual on conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (hereinafter “CCRA”) discharged two firearms at the applicant. The applicant survived the attack but was seriously injured; some of his sequelae are permanent. He brought an action for damages against the Attorney General of Canada on the grounds that the persons responsible for administering the individual’s sentence committed faults at the time of his conditional release and in the supervision following his release.

The Quebec Superior Court judge agreed that the action was one in civil liability under art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec. There was no fault on the part of Correctional Service Canada, either during the assessment of the release or with respect to the subsequent supervision. He added that even if faults had been committed, there was no causal connection. The Quebec Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not commit any reviewable error and that the persons responsible for administering the individual’s sentence did not commit faults in light of the objectives of the CCRA.