The evidence did not meet the recklessness or bad faith threshold: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied a plaintiff's request to amend his claim to include individual correctional officers in a lawsuit stemming from a severe assault at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre.
In Phixaykoune v. Ontario, 2024 ONSC 3860, the plaintiff, who was brutally attacked by fellow inmates, sustained life-altering injuries and remained in a coma for several days. He initiated legal proceedings, naming the Crown and anonymous correctional officers as defendants. He sought to amend his pleading to properly identify the correctional officers involved.
Under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA) and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (MCSA), Crown employees, including correctional officers, are generally protected against personal liability for negligent conduct unless such conduct is undertaken in bad faith. Section 17 of the CLPA requires that leave of the court be granted to proceed with a civil action against Crown employees for misfeasance or bad faith.
The plaintiff argued that leave was unnecessary as his claims were based on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breaches of s. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He contended that these claims did not directly involve bad faith.
The court found the plaintiff's arguments untenable. It noted that the Crown does not owe a fiduciary duty to individual citizens, including inmates, and thus, correctional officers as Crown employees do not owe such a duty. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a basis for a fiduciary duty in his amended claim.
The Superior Court emphasized that claims against correctional officers must be based on bad faith, which requires evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The plaintiff admitted he did not believe the officers intended to harm him but argued that their conduct amounted to bad faith due to recklessness and a breakdown in exercising authority.
The court found that the evidence provided, including findings from an Investigation Report, did not meet the recklessness or bad faith threshold. The officers' failure to conduct patrols as per institutional policies and other administrative shortcomings were deemed inadequate to establish bad faith. The court concluded that these actions amounted to negligence, for which the officers are immune under the CLPA. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiff leave to amend his claim to include a breach of fiduciary duty against the individual correctional officers.
