Tort law in Canada concerns the treatment of the law of torts within the Canadian jurisdiction excluding Quebec, which is covered by the law of obligations. A tort consists of a wrongful acts or injury that lead to physical, emotional, or financial damage to a person in which another person could be held legally responsible. The two main subcategories of tort law are intentional torts and unintentional torts.
Intentional Tort
Except where excluded by statute, the common law intentional torts are applicable in Canada. This includes:
Currently, there is no consistent approach surrounding the tort of invasion of privacy in Canada. Four provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have created a statutory tort. Ontario has recognized the existence of the tort of invasion of privacy called "intrusion upon seclusion". British Columbia, on the other hand, has held that the tort does not exist in that province under the common law. There was some debate over whether there was a common law tort of discrimination. This was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court in Bhadauria v. Seneca College. This issue was further examined by the court through Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2 S.C.R. 362, 2008 SCC 39
In the case of Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, Mr. Hill was charged with ten counts of robbery, however, he was soon acquitted of all charges. After the charges were dropped, he then sued Hamilton's police service as well as some of the officers who were involved in his arrest. Hill argued that the police were negligent in conducting a thorough investigation because the police officers did not properly interview the witnesses, which ultimately led to his arrest. Hill's lawsuit was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada because there was not enough evidence to support Hill's findings that the police were negligent in their duty or standard of care. What is important to note about this particular trial is that three out of the nine Supreme Court Judges did not view the negligent tort claim as being lawful or practical because a strict duty of care towards suspects would therefore interfere with how the police operate in terms of apprehending offenders and investigating crimes.
