City of Laval responsible in shooting by ex-RCMP cop

[viper37]

French text

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).

[Neil]

It's lawsuits like this that have helped ruin the world.

[dps]

I tend to agree with Neil on this one. 

[Barrister]

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).

[viper37]

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?

[Barrister]

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.

[Barrister]

Here is the leading authority in Canada on "negligent investigation" by police:

Per 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

[Admiral Yi]

Dude was probably extra touchy because he had a girl's name.

[Oexmelin]

Jocelyn is a man's name. It's written and pronounced differently than the female version, Jocelyne, whether he is Hotte or Notte.

[Martinus]

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.

[Octavian]

Dude was probably extra touchy because he had a girl's name.

I will be popular in prison.

[Martinus]

LOL Freudian slip. 

[Grey Fox]

His name is this :

[grumbler]

His name is this :

His name means "flying refrigerator?" 

[Grey Fox]

It's a range hood.