The court found a reasonable claim that the chief failed to supervise and discipline officers
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a negligence claim against a police chief can proceed, recognizing that a chief may be liable for failing to properly train, supervise, and discipline officers accused of using excessive force during an arrest.
The dispute in Rivard v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 100 centred on an individual who claimed that during his arrest, he was assaulted and permanently injured by police officers employed by the Kingston Police Service. He alleged that the police chief and the police services board are liable for failing to train and oversee the officers involved properly.
The lawsuit stemmed from a 2018 arrest in which the plaintiff was forced from a vehicle, beaten unconscious, and required surgery for serious injuries. He contended that he posed no threat or resistance at the time of the arrest and that the officers' actions were unwarranted. The plaintiff also alleged that his treatment resulted from a failure in leadership, training, and supervision by senior police officials.
The plaintiff sought damages totalling $9 million for pain and suffering, income loss, and constitutional rights violations. Following the arrest, he convinced the court that police had violated his rights, which led to a stay of charges against him. The presiding judge in that case found that the officers had used unreasonable force, causing serious harm.
Read next: Pain and suffering settlement examples: the top precedents in Canadian law
In response to the civil lawsuit, the police chief and the police services board sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims did not meet the legal standard required to proceed. A lower court allowed the claims to move forward, prompting an appeal.
The Court of Appeal examined whether the lower court had erred in considering the criminal judge's findings when determining whether the civil claims were viable. It also assessed whether the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a legal basis for negligence against the police chief and whether the claims against the police board were properly framed.
The court upheld the decision, allowing the negligence claim against the police chief to proceed. It found that the allegations outlined a reasonable claim that the chief failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline officers, leading to the alleged assault. The court found it unfair to require further details at this stage, mainly because the defendants control much of the relevant evidence.
However, the court struck the claims of direct negligence against the police board. It found that the lawsuit did not sufficiently allege how the board's actions specifically contributed to the alleged misconduct. The court noted that a police board is responsible for setting policy but does not oversee the daily operations of officers, limiting its direct liability in such cases. Despite this finding, the board remains a defendant due to its vicarious liability for the officers' alleged actions.
The court delivered a mixed ruling, allowing the lawsuit against the police chief and officers to proceed while removing specific claims against the board. The case will now proceed in the civil courts, with the remaining claims subject to further judicial review.
