The appellants, a police officer and the police services board, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligent police investigation of the respondents regarding stolen auto parts.
The trial judge had determined the standard of care without relying on expert evidence and awarded substantial damages.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in departing from the general rule that expert evidence is required to establish the standard of care for a professional, as the investigation was technical and the police conduct was not egregious.
The Court also found the trial judge erred in formulating the standard of care and failing to consider the respondent's committal for trial.
The judgment was set aside except for an agreed award for damaged property.
