{"id":547,"date":"2016-12-23T18:04:42","date_gmt":"2016-12-23T22:04:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=547"},"modified":"2016-12-23T18:04:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T22:04:42","slug":"ontario-notice-under-the-proceedings-against-the-crown-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=547","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Conners v. Ontario <\/em><\/a>considers compliance with the notice requirement of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate while incarcerated at a facility operated by Ontario.\u00a0 On the date of the incident, the corrections officer who found the plaintiff completed an accident\/injury report.\u00a0 A nurse at the prison signed the report attesting to the injuries.\u00a0 The prison authorities obtained two statements from the plaintiff.\u00a0 They transferred the plaintiff to a hospital where hospital staff recorded his condition and course of treatment.\u00a0 Meanwhile, a manager at the prison maintained a log-book of the events.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff argued that all of these events, taken together, constituted notice to Ontario of his claim.<\/p>\n

Justice Corbett rejected this argument:<\/p>\n

[22]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 I do not accept this argument:<\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 the statements given by Mr Conners on the day of the incident do not contain any suggestion that Mr Conners considered that Ontario was to blame for the injuries he suffered at the hands of Mr McCartney.<\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The discussions between Mr Conners and Mr Duffy in January 2010 concerned a possible claim by Mr Conners to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board arising out of the conduct of Mr McCartney.\u00a0 There is no evidence that either Mr Conners or Mr Duffy raised the possibility of a claim by Mr Conners against Ontario, the prison, or persons working at or associated with the prison.\u00a0 Throughout, the discussion was premised on potential claims in respect to wrongdoing of Mr McCartney.<\/p>\n

[23]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Mr Conners argues that this case is similar to Latta v. Ontario, where notice of the facts surrounding an injury were found to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of s.7(1) of PACA, even though the notice did not expressly threaten a claim against the Crown for compensation.[4]\u00a0 In my view the cases should be distinguished.<\/p>\n

[24]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Latta was a trip-and-fall case.\u00a0 Mr Latta tripped over a sand-filled bucket left in a dangerous place.\u00a0 As a result he fell down some concrete stairs and suffered serious back injuries.\u00a0 The court held that notice of the circumstances of the accident was sufficient in that case to be notice of a claim because the circumstances were such that the Crown was the obvious entity with legal responsibility for the inherently dangerous situation on its premises.\u00a0 That is simply not the case here: there is no obvious implication that an unprovoked attack by one inmate upon another is the result of any misconduct by the Crown.<\/p>\n

[25]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 In Latta, which was a \u201cclose case\u201d (para. 31), the court found that there was \u201can element of complaint\u201d in Mr Latta\u2019s dealings with prison authorities at the time of the incident (para. 32).\u00a0 The court found:<\/p>\n

\u2026 the appellant\u2019s decision to inform prison officials about the accident and his identification of the actions of the Crown (leaving a bucket at the top of the stairs) as a cause of the accident entail a certain degree of \u201ccomplaint\u201d.\u00a0 It may not be, in explicit terms, the equivalent of \u201cI fell down the stairs and it is your fault\u201d; however, it goes beyond a simple \u201cI fell down the stairs.\u201d (para. 32)<\/p>\n

In the case before me, there was nothing about Mr Conners conduct that could have led reasonable prison officials to have understood him to be implying \u201cI was assaulted by McCartney and it is your fault.\u201d\u00a0 Rather, what he said, in effect, was \u201cI don\u2019t know what happened because I was hit from behind\u201d.\u00a0 He was told that McCartney did it and that a prosecution and claim for criminal injuries compensation was possible.\u00a0 These circumstances do not entail \u201ca certain degree of \u2018complaint\u2019\u201d about the prison or its employees.<\/p>\n

[26]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 In Latta the Court of Appeal also found that the circumstances described by Mr Latta in the Accident\/Injury Report suggest, on their face, the potential for litigation.\u00a0 The court found:<\/p>\n

The accident itself is a visual paradigm for a lawsuit: a man trips over a bucket being used as a doorstop at the top of some stairs, falls down the stairs and is injured\u2026.\u00a0 Although the report does not use the word \u201cclaim\u201d, the content of the report and the nature of the accident have, in my view, a strong indication of \u201cpotential claim\u201d about them. (para. 34)<\/p>\n

The circumstances of Mr Conners\u2019 case are not a \u201cvisual paradigm for a lawsuit\u201d.\u00a0 Unfortunately, assaults by prison inmates on other inmates are not unheard of.\u00a0 The agency for injury is an inmate, not the prison or its employees.\u00a0 Of course could imagine circumstances where it might be possible to assert a claim against a prison for failing to protect an inmate from a known threat.\u00a0 There is no evidence that Mr Conners complained of circumstances that could give rise to such a claim \u2013 circumstances that could carry with them the \u201celement of complaint\u201d that would give notice to the prison that Mr Conners was saying to the prison that he was injured in an assault \u201cand it is your fault.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The plaintiff also argued that the Crown had waived any non-compliance with PACA.\u00a0 Justice Corbett rejected these arguments well.<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0 The Waiver Argument<\/p>\n

[29]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The waiver argument cannot succeed for two reasons.\u00a0 First, neither the court nor government lawyers can waive the requirements of PACA.\u00a0 The requirements of PACA are mandatory and it is for the plaintiff to prove that he has complied with them.[5]<\/p>\n

[30]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 In any event, Ontario did plead and rely upon PACA in para. 21 of its original statement of defence: that which is expressly pleaded cannot be said to have been waived by the pleading.<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0 The Admission Arguments<\/p>\n

[31]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 It would be possible (and in some cases desirable) for the Crown to admit that it has received the required notice under PACA.\u00a0 When this happens, the plaintiff will not be required to elicit proof at trial of compliance with the provision.\u00a0 But in the absence of a clear, unambiguous admission, compliance with PACA is a condition precedent for a claim against the Crown that is governed by PACA, and the plaintiff is required to prove compliance as part of its case in chief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The decision includes a helpful summary of the notice requirement:<\/p>\n

The Notice Requirements in PACA<\/p>\n

[2]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Subsection 7(1) of PACA provides:<\/p>\n

\u2026 no action for a claim shall be commenced against the Crown unless the claimant has, at least sixty days before the commencement of the action, served on the Crown a notice of the claim containing sufficient particulars to identify the occasion out of which the claim arose, and the Attorney General may require such additional particulars as in his or her opinion are necessary to enable the claim to be investigated.<\/p>\n

[3]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Subsection 7(2) of PACA extends an applicable limitation period in certain circumstances where notice is required pursuant to subsection 7(1):<\/p>\n

Where a notice of claim is served under subsection (1) before the expiration of the limitation period applying to the commencement of an action for the claim and the sixty-day period referred to in subsection (1) expires after the expiration of the limitation period, the limitation period is extended to the end of seven days after the expiration of the sixty-day period.<\/p>\n

[4]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 A notice of claim must be in writing and must include a complaint which, if not satisfied, could reasonably be anticipated to result in litigation against the Crown.[1]\u00a0 The focus is on the substance of what is communicated to the Crown rather than rigid formal requirements.[2]<\/p>\n

[5]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Compliance with the sixty-day notice requirement in s.7(1) of PACA is mandatory.\u00a0 It cannot be abridged.\u00a0 An action commenced in violation of this requirement is a nullity.\u00a0 And the court has no discretion to relieve from this result.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Conners v. Ontario considers compliance with the notice requirement of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. The plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate while incarcerated at a facility operated by Ontario.\u00a0 On the date of the incident, the corrections officer who found the plaintiff completed an accident\/injury report.\u00a0 A nurse at the prison signed the … Continue reading Ontario: notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[308,307,209,306],"class_list":["post-547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-best-to-avoid-injury-in-a-jail","tag-notice-periods","tag-notice-provisions","tag-ontario-proceedings-against-the-crown-act"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=547"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":548,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547\/revisions\/548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}