Rioters did not have common intention for acts of vandalism they committed

Following hockey game, fans’ celebrations turned into riots. As result, 15 patrol cars belonging to police department of municipality were destroyed. Several rioters were identified and arrested. Municipality brought action against them for damage done to patrol cars. Trial judge held that no evidence showed that rioters had clear intention to engage in common venture. Trial judge determined fair compensation each rioter would have to pay and municipality appealed. Court of Appeal confirmed trial judge’s findings and municipality appealed to Supreme Court of Canada. Appeal dismissed. In present case, it was possible to determine what specific damage to victim’s property was caused by each of identified rioters. Further, rioters did not have common intention for acts of vandalism they committed. Furthermore, there was no causal connection between each person’s participation in riot and total destruction of patrol cars. Rather, there were many distinct and identifiable injuries that could be linked to particular rioter. Therefore, rioters cannot be found solidarily liable.

Montréal (Ville) c. Lonardi (2018), 2018 CarswellQue 4410, 2018 CarswellQue 4411, 2018 SCC 29, 2018 CSC 29, McLachlin C.J.C., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., and Rowe J. (S.C.C.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellQue 5327, 2016 QCCA 1022, Duval Hesler J.C.Q., Émond J.C.A., and Hogue J.C.A. (C.A. Que.).