French text (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/justice-et-faits-divers/201003/30/01-4265724-laval-tenue-responsable-dans-laffaire-jocelyn-hotte.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B4_manchettes_231_accueil_POS1)
Haven't found an english link yet, nor did I find the judgement, it seems to be fresh out of the press.
Jocelyn Hotte was a former RCMP sniper who killed his ex-girlfriend an 3 other men in a 2001 shooting in Laval. He followed her in a car chase and kept shooting until he killed her.
He also seriously wounded 3 men who were in the same car as the lady (Lucie Gélinas).
This happenned on June 23rd 2001. On June 18th 2001, Miss Gelinas reported death threat from her ex boyfriend to Laval Police. The threats were "I give you one last chance" and "remember how you dad died, he got shot". The police dismissed this, and 5 days later she was killed. Hotte also used his status as a policeman to "visit" neighbours of his ex, search them and note their vehicle registration. The guy really seemed dangeroulsy unbalanced. Yet the cops did not take this seriously...
So the survivors sued Laval, and today they won. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz of Quebec's Superior Court:
(approximate translation) «The evidence demonstrated all that could have done by the Laval police and the RCMP, had they been informed of the facts related by Gélinas to the police on June 18th. What could have been done would have avoided the murder and the damages caused.»
Hotte had priors, where he threatened one of his former colleague, and he was sanctionned by the RCMP. According to the judge, had the Laval Police reported the threats, the RCMP would have seized Hotte's weapons.
Weird case. Imho, the policemen who didn't take the threats seriously should be sanctionned, but that will never happen. It's a clear case of incompetence from this police force, not the first, sadly, and maybe not even the last (so far, including this, I count 2 other mistakes from Laval Police dpt that resulted this time in 2 police officers death).
It's lawsuits like this that have helped ruin the world.
I tend to agree with Neil on this one.
The problem is - people make threats, even death threats, all the fucking time. It's often hard to get the courts to take uttering threats charges seriously as a result.
I agree that the police should have done more. I have real trouble though with attaching liability however. The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever. There has to be some level of prioritizing.
But that being said - it's cases like this are why I take a zero tolerance approach to domestics. I don't drop charges, I don't agree to their bail. Because if the shit hits the fan (which it will) I can show that I did everything that I could. There was a case in BC two years ago where a fellow was charged with assaulting his wife, then breached his bail a couple of times, and the prosecutor agreed to release him. He of course proceeded to murder/suicide the whole family, and that prosecutor's career was in tatters (despite doing nothing wrong).
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2010, 12:41:22 PM
I agree that the police should have done more. I have real trouble though with attaching liability however. The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever. There has to be some level of prioritizing.
As I said, not the first fuck up from this police corps.
I understand they have limited resources, but really, if a women reports that her armed ex-boyfriend who's armed is threatening her, it shouldn't be dismissed like that. They should have at least made a check on the guy, contact the RCMP, something. Not doing nothing. Had they contacted the RCMP, maybe they would have done nothing, but maybe it would have raised a flag as this was the second time he was threatening someone.
Besides, I'm all for the public servants to be accountable for their negligence.
Imagine if the police corps was a private company.
Would Neil & Dps think it was misapropriate to sue them for negligence?
English link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/30/laval-shooting-survivors-win-lawsuit.html
And Viper - 'accountable' sounds great as a word, but how does that work out in this case. This isn't where the police did something, and they screwed up doing it. Here the allegation is the police could have done something to prevent this from happening. That's pretty damn speculative IMHO.
I'd love to see a written decision, because I have trouble seeing how they establish liability on the police.
Here is the leading authority in Canada on "negligent investigation" by police:
QuotePer McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella JJ.: The police are not immune from liability under the law of negligence and the tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada. Police officers owe a duty of care to suspects. Their conduct during an investigation should be measured against the standard of how a reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted. Police officers may be accountable for harm resulting to a suspect if they fail to meet this standard. In this case, the police officers' conduct, considered in light of police practices at the time, meets the standard of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances and H's claim in negligence is not made out. [3] [74] [77]
A person owes a duty of care to another person if the relationship between the two discloses sufficient foreseeability and proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care. In the very particular relationship between the police and a suspect under investigation, reasonable foreseeability is clearly made out because a negligent investigation may cause harm to the suspect. Establishing proximity generally involves examining factors such as the parties' expectations, representations, reliance and property or other interests. There is sufficient proximity between police officers and a particularized suspect under investigation to recognize a prima facie duty of care. The relationship is clearly personal, close and direct. A suspect has a critical personal interest in the conduct of an investigation. No other tort provides an adequate remedy for negligent police investigations. The tort is consistent with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and fosters the public's interest in responding to failures of the justice system. [21] [24‑25] [31‑39]
No compelling policy reasons negate the duty of care. Investigating suspects does not require police officers to make quasi‑judicial decisions as to legal guilt or innocence or to evaluate evidence according to legal standards. The discretion inherent in police work is not relevant to whether a duty of care arises, although it is relevant to the standard of care owed to a suspect. Police officers are not unlike other professionals who exercise levels of discretion in their work but who are subject to a duty of care. Recognizing a duty of care will not raise the reasonable and probable grounds standard required for certain police conduct such as arrest, prosecution, search and seizure. The record does not establish that recognizing the tort will change the behaviour of the police, cause officers to become unduly defensive or lead to a flood of litigation. The burden of proof on a plaintiff and a defendant's right of appeal provide safeguards against any risk that a plaintiff acquitted of a crime, but in fact guilty of the crime, may recover against an officer for negligent investigation. [50‑51] [53] [55] [61‑65]
The standard of care of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances should be applied in a manner that gives due recognition to the discretion inherent in police investigation. Police officers may make minor errors or errors in judgment without breaching the standard. This standard is flexible, covers all aspects of investigatory police work, and is reinforced by the nature and importance of police investigations. [68‑73]
To establish a cause of action for negligent police investigation, the plaintiff must show that he or she suffered compensable damage and a causal connection to a breach of the standard of care owed to him or her. Lawful pains and penalties imposed on a guilty person do not constitute compensable loss. The limitation period for negligent investigation begins to run when the cause of action is complete and the harmful consequences result. This occurs when it is clear that the suspect has suffered compensable harm. In this case, the limitation period did not start to run until H was acquitted of all charges of robbery. [90‑98]
The respondents' conduct in relation to H, considered in light of police practices at the time, meets the standard of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances. The publication of H's photo, incomplete records of witness interviews, interviewing two witnesses together, and failing to blind‑test photos are not good practices by today's standards but the evidence does not establish that a reasonable officer at the time would not have followed similar practices or that H would not have been charged and convicted if these incidents had not occurred. The trial judge accepted expert evidence that there were no rules governing photo lineups and a great deal of variation of practice at the time. It was established that the photo lineup's racial composition did not lead to unfairness. After H was arrested, credible evidence continued to support the charge against H and Crown prosecutors had assumed responsibility for the file. It has not been established that a reasonable police officer in either a supporting or a lead investigator's role, in the circumstances, would have intervened to halt the case. [74] [78‑81] [86] [88]
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc41/2007scc41.html
Dude was probably extra touchy because he had a girl's name.
Jocelyn is a man's name. It's written and pronounced differently than the female version, Jocelyne, whether he is Hotte or Notte.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2010, 06:05:50 PM
Dude was probably extra touchy because he had a girl's name.
Well, on the plus-side, his last name can be pronounced "Hottie".
I will be popular in prison. :P
LOL Freudian slip. :blush:
His name is this : (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marieclairemaison.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2FF0%2FHotteRHI9101SP.jpg&hash=d1abf3ca3a6b7ee79c286e677ffcdf95b0495bb6)
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 31, 2010, 05:58:43 AM
His name is this : (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marieclairemaison.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2FF0%2FHotteRHI9101SP.jpg&hash=d1abf3ca3a6b7ee79c286e677ffcdf95b0495bb6)
His name means "flying refrigerator?" :huh:
It's a range hood.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 31, 2010, 07:50:01 AM
It's a range hood.
That was impossible to tell from the picture.
Eh, it's a trendy one.
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
English link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/30/laval-shooting-survivors-win-lawsuit.html
And Viper - 'accountable' sounds great as a word, but how does that work out in this case. This isn't where the police did something, and they screwed up doing it. Here the allegation is the police could have done something to prevent this from happening. That's pretty damn speculative IMHO.
I'd love to see a written decision, because I have trouble seeing how they establish liability on the police.
thanks for the english link :) Easier to discuss with you that way :)
Ah, accountable, imho, for any public servant, is not when they tried to do something and made a genuine mistake.
It's rather the case of not doing anything when they should have.
In this case, had they filed the complaint, paid a visit to the guy, advised the RCMP of the threat, and the murder still happenned, I don't think they would have been liable for the tragedy, nor do I think they would have deserved it.
I thought it was a stainless steel domino gripper.
I wonder what happened to the two dickheads who visited her house, and chose to protect one of their own rather than investigate the allegations.
Quote from: viper37 on March 30, 2010, 02:05:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2010, 12:41:22 PM
I agree that the police should have done more. I have real trouble though with attaching liability however. The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever. There has to be some level of prioritizing.
As I said, not the first fuck up from this police corps.
I understand they have limited resources, but really, if a women reports that her armed ex-boyfriend who's armed is threatening her, it shouldn't be dismissed like that. They should have at least made a check on the guy, contact the RCMP, something. Not doing nothing. Had they contacted the RCMP, maybe they would have done nothing, but maybe it would have raised a flag as this was the second time he was threatening someone.
Besides, I'm all for the public servants to be accountable for their negligence.
Imagine if the police corps was a private company.
Would Neil & Dps think it was misapropriate to sue them for negligence?
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Police forces generally scrape the bottom of the Societal barrel anyways.
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
*clap* To restate: "we should allow the police to fuck up, because fuckups are the only police we can hire."
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
I'm not sure why people would want to join now.
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2010, 12:41:22 PM
The problem is - people make threats, even death threats, all the fucking time. It's often hard to get the courts to take uttering threats charges seriously as a result.
I agree that the police should have done more. I have real trouble though with attaching liability however. The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever. There has to be some level of prioritizing.
But that being said - it's cases like this are why I take a zero tolerance approach to domestics. I don't drop charges, I don't agree to their bail. Because if the shit hits the fan (which it will) I can show that I did everything that I could. There was a case in BC two years ago where a fellow was charged with assaulting his wife, then breached his bail a couple of times, and the prosecutor agreed to release him. He of course proceeded to murder/suicide the whole family, and that prosecutor's career was in tatters (despite doing nothing wrong).
I agree that the duty of care is more difficult to establish when it comes to inaction than when it comes to action, but I disagree that it is impossible or pointless to try to establish.
What we have here is a question whether the decision not to do anything about the threats was a reasonable (if, in retrospect, wrong) resource-dedication judgement, or a case of laziness, or worse yet, protecting one's own by the police.
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Same reason that it's actually not true for a lot of us...Unions.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up. That's not the issue.
The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake. If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.
That's the case for every job. Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.
Why on earth would you make policing different? In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money. But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.
I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down. With hindsight it was a terrible decision. But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew? I can see where he was coming from.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2010, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up. That's not the issue.
The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake. If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.
That's the case for every job. Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.
Why on earth would you make policing different? In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money. But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.
I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down. With hindsight it was a terrible decision. But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew? I can see where he was coming from.
WTF are you talking about? Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make? I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it). I also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances. And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc. Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2010, 12:37:44 PM
That's the case for every job. Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.
An employee can be found liable for negligence here (no deliberate bad act) and while the employer may be liable (and so usually the employee is not pursued), the employee is also liable for their negligence.
You're saying that works differently in the Frozen North?
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2010, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up. That's not the issue.
The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake. If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.
That's the case for every job. Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.
Why on earth would you make policing different? In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money. But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.
I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down. With hindsight it was a terrible decision. But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew? I can see where he was coming from.
WTF are you talking about? Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make? I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it). I also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances. And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc. Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.
See where I bolded your original statement? That's where you said they should sue individual police officers.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2010, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2010, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 03:04:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2010, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2010, 09:49:34 PM
Nah, sue away. But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups. Want to hold them accountable? That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.
Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?
Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough. Why should that be any different for police officers?
Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up. That's not the issue.
The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake. If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.
That's the case for every job. Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.
Why on earth would you make policing different? In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money. But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.
I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down. With hindsight it was a terrible decision. But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew? I can see where he was coming from.
WTF are you talking about? Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make? I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it). I also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances. And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc. Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.
See where I bolded your original statement? That's where you said they should sue individual police officers.
Uh, no. I perhaps wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying that cops should be accountable in the same way that any employee is accountable--they can be fired or otherwise disciplined for their mistakes.
Wow, dps's claim that "taxpayers shouldn't be liable" is one of the strangest things I have heard here, especially from a Westerner.
When communism ended in Poland, the change of law resulting in the fact that the state can be sued for damages resulting from negligent or illegal actions of its representatives (such as police officers or other public functionaries) was considered one of the biggest achievements of the free state based on the concept of a rule of law.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 02:09:25 PM
Uh, no. I perhaps wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying that cops should be accountable in the same way that any employee is accountable--they can be fired or otherwise disciplined for their mistakes.
Uhm, but employees can also be sued for damages resulting from their negligence or carelessness. This liability may be capped by statute, and usually people prefer to go after the employer due to bigger pockets, but you are mistaken if you believe that employees enjoy some sort of immunity for their actions carried out while "on duty", I think.
Quote from: ulmont on April 01, 2010, 01:29:49 PM
An employee can be found liable for negligence here (no deliberate bad act) and while the employer may be liable (and so usually the employee is not pursued), the employee is also liable for their negligence.
You're saying that works differently in the Frozen North?
Unless it's deliberate, no, I don't think a company can sue its employees. In cases of gross negligence, I'll be held accountable for not providing sufficiently clear directives, or not paying for complementary classes.
Rules have changed a tad in the past few years where the foreman can now be sued for his negligence if he let people work without adequate protection (say, helmet, or tying themselves when they are working above 5') and they have an accident.
Even if the guy comes to work drunk and 'cause an accident, I will be held liable as I should have seen him and prevent him from working. In wich case, I need to pay his minimum wage (3hrs for non unionized workers, 4hrs) for the day + the cost of a taxi/bus to bring him back home. If he injures himself while in that state, I am liable for his injuries.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2010, 04:34:13 PM
Unless it's deliberate, no, I don't think a company can sue its employees. In cases of gross negligence, I'll be held accountable for not providing sufficiently clear directives, or not paying for complementary classes.
Rules have changed a tad in the past few years where the foreman can now be sued for his negligence if he let people work without adequate protection (say, helmet, or tying themselves when they are working above 5') and they have an accident.
Even if the guy comes to work drunk and 'cause an accident, I will be held liable as I should have seen him and prevent him from working. In wich case, I need to pay his minimum wage (3hrs for non unionized workers, 4hrs) for the day + the cost of a taxi/bus to bring him back home. If he injures himself while in that state, I am liable for his injuries.
Workplace accidents are a bad example, as there is a specific statutory regimce (Workers Comp) that is no-fault.