The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging negligence, breach of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and misfeasance in public office arising from a drive‑by shooting committed by a third party.
The plaintiffs alleged that police had prior intelligence about the shooter and owed a private law duty of care to protect a narrow class of potential victims.
The court held that the pleadings did not establish a special relationship of proximity between the police and the victim sufficient to create a private law duty of care, distinguishing the case from Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto Commissioners of Police.
The Charter claim failed because the Charter does not impose a positive obligation on police to prevent harm, and the pleadings did not establish the elements of misfeasance in public office.
The Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim was struck with leave to amend.
