Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs alleged RCMP officers failed to investigate Robyn O'Neill and instead pursued biased actions against Sean O’Neill.

• Claims focused on negligent investigation, bias, and dereliction of duty by RCMP members following a domestic incident.

• Court reaffirmed that police officers owe duties to the public at large, not individual complainants or victims.

• Application to strike was granted, removing portions of the claim asserting that RCMP owed the plaintiffs a civil duty of care.

• Alternative claims such as misfeasance in public office and Charter breaches were deemed inadequately supported by the current pleadings.

• Plaintiffs were given 45 days to apply to amend the claim with affidavit evidence to support alternate causes of action.

Facts of the case

Sean O’Neill, the Plaintiff, was married to Robyn O’Neill, the Defendant and a senior non-commissioned officer in the RCMP’s Fox Creek detachment. Sean is also the owner of 1143979 Alberta Ltd, a corporate co-plaintiff. The claim arises from a domestic altercation where Sean alleged that Robyn assaulted him while intoxicated, in uniform, and driving her RCMP vehicle.

Sean contacted 911, reporting the incident. Corporal Davidsen assured him the matter would be looked into, but Sean later claimed that Fox Creek officers Leasa and Haight met Robyn but did nothing. Davidsen also met with Robyn and allegedly failed to investigate. Davidsen later informed Sean that Robyn was not intoxicated and had done nothing wrong, which the Plaintiffs claimed was a dereliction of duty.

The next day, Sean was arrested by RCMP officers Dupuis and Tillack, and his firearms were confiscated. A subsequent investigation by RCMP officer Erin Sowers was described in the claim as biased and negligent. Charges were laid against Sean, but all except one were dropped. He pled guilty to mischief to an RCMP vehicle and received a conditional discharge.

Two days after the incident, Robyn allegedly took $9000.00 from 114’s bank account and transferred it to Jen Scott, who then returned it to Robyn. RCMP officers Haight and Bolten later attended Sean’s residence and took his property. When Sean complained, Davidsen first promised to return the property but later refused, stating it was a “civil matter.” Sean also reported the theft of the $9000.00 to Staff Sergeant Meyer, who also treated it as a civil matter.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the RCMP negligently lost a gun case and duvet covers seized during the arrest. The claim also alleged misconduct by RCMP members including misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, breach of Charter rights (sections 7, 8, and 9), and sought aggravated and punitive damages.

Legal issues and court's decision

Canada applied to strike paragraphs 10–12, 16A, 18A, 19, and 20 of the Amended Amended Statement of Claim, arguing these paragraphs improperly asserted that RCMP officers owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs. The court agreed, citing legal precedent that the police owe investigative duties to the public, not to individual complainants or victims. Cited cases included Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, and several appellate decisions confirming this principle.

The Plaintiffs argued that the court should read the Claim as a whole and that a generous interpretation of novel claims should apply. They also contended that RCMP officers did owe Sean a duty of care because he had been charged. The court clarified that while suspects may be owed legal duties, the allegations here related to the failure to investigate Robyn, not the handling of charges against Sean.

Judge B.W. Summers found it “very clear” that the named RCMP officers did not owe a civil duty to the Plaintiffs in their roles as complainants. Any part of the Claim based on this premise was struck.

Alternative claims and next steps

The Plaintiffs asserted that their pleadings also supported other causes of action such as misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, conversion, abuse of process, and Charter breaches. However, the court determined the Claim did not adequately support these claims. Plaintiffs were invited to apply to amend their Claim with affidavit evidence within 45 days, but the court emphasized that responsibility for bringing such an application rests with the Plaintiffs, not the court.

Canada was awarded costs of the application under Schedule “C” of the Rules of Court, with doubled costs for briefs due to the filing of supplemental materials.

Outcome

The court granted Canada’s application to strike portions of the claim that alleged RCMP officers owed a duty to investigate Robyn O’Neill on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to amend their pleadings to support alternative causes of action with factual evidence. Costs were awarded to Canada, payable forthwith. No amount was specified.