Released: June 10 2009 ROSEMARY N. DE CAIRES
Total Pages: 20 ROSEMARYDECAIRES//PROFESSIONALCORPORATION//01062009.1
SUMMARY REVISED
§ CIVIL — Civil Motion – Peel regional officers involved in unlawful detainment – Actions brought by estate and
victim survivor – Statement of claim shows misfeasance in public office – against the Chief of Peel Region –
professional negligence involving the province in the right of Ontario – Actions based on failure of officers to co-
operate in SIU Investigation – Investigation led by the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General – Question portions
of statement of claim could be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – Ontario Rules of Civil
Procedure R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 r. 21. 01(1)(b) and Rule 7 struck out of proceeding.
§ TORT — Tort of misfeasance in public office – Victim chemically restrained upon arrest – John Doe and Jane Doe
involved in strip search using chemical restraints not complying with statutory duty to co-operate with SIU
investigation – victim survivor brings actions in misfeasance in public office involving search warrants for arrest Ms.
'X' – Question tort of misfeasance in public office can arise from misconduct involving breaches of statutory duty –
Question tort limited to unlawful exercise of statutory of prerogative powers in the right of Ontario.
§ DUTY — Tort in professional negligence – Duty of care – victim labeled Ms. 'X ' – Victim reported a missing,
homeless person – unlawful detainment under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O., 1990, not complying with statutory
duty to cooperate with SIU investigation – action for professional negligence and province of Ontario – Question
duty of care to ensure co-operation with SIU investigation led by the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General in the
right of Ontario.
§ COSTS — Plaintiff submits she was then a student registered in a post-secondary institution in Ontario. Actions
involving public authorities and raising issues of public interest insufficient to alter essential nature of litigation –
Plaintiff fully within definition of post-graduate student – No clear and compelling reasons to interfere with the
court's decision to award costs in accordance with Rule 7 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg.
194.