Canada: When It Comes To Issue Estoppel, Discretion And Fairness Win

Last Updated: May 20 2013
Article by Justin R. Seitz

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently rendered a decision in Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, regarding the application of issue estoppel. At issue was whether it was proper to strike a claim in a civil action on the basis of a hearing officer's decision in a police disciplinary proceeding arising from the same incident.

Mr. Wayne Penner (Penner) was arrested for disruptive behaviour in an Ontario courtroom. Following the incident Penner filed a complaint against two police officers under the Police Services Act, RSO 1990, c P15 (the "PSA"). Penner also started a civil action for damages against the two police officers, their Chief of Police, and the Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Police Services Board (collectively the "Police"), alleging, among other things, unlawful arrest and use of excessive force. Pursuant to the PSA, the Chief of Police appointed the hearing officer for the disciplinary proceedings.

The hearing officer found the officers not guilty of any misconduct and dismissed the complaint. The decision was reversed by the Ontario Civilian Commission as it found the arrest unlawful. On further appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court, the decision was reversed again as it found that the police officers did have legal authority to make the arrest, thus restoring the hearing officer's decision.

Following the Divisional Court decision, the Police applied to the Superior Court of Justice to have many of the claims in the civil action struck on the basis of issues estoppel; they argued that the disciplinary proceedings had finally resolved the issues underpinning the civil claim. The Police were successful. Penner appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) arguing that it was improper to apply issue estoppel in the circumstances. Exercising its discretion in the application of issue estoppel the ONCA barred Penner's civil claim and dismissed the appeal concluding that the disciplinary hearing had finally resolved the key issues. Penner appealed to the SCC.
 

The Majority Decision (McLachlin, C.J., and Fish, Cromwell Karakatsanis JJ)

On the facts the preconditions for applying issues estoppel, as outlined in Danyuk v Ainsworth Technologies, 2001 SCC 44 [2001] 2 SCR 460., had been met (at page 477): First, the hearing officer's decision was judicial and the hearing fulfilled the requirements of procedural fairness. Second, the decision was final. And third, the parties to the civil action were the same as in the disciplinary hearing. However, the majority supported a flexible approach, giving the Court discretion to refuse to apply issue estoppel if it will work an injustice even where the preconditions for its application have been met. The majority concluded that it would be fundamentally unfair to preclude Penner's civil claim in the circumstances.

With reference to the jurisprudence, the majority identified two main ways in which unfairness may arise when applying issue estoppel: (1) The unfairness of prior proceedings; and (2) The unfairness of using the results of prior proceedings to bar subsequent proceedings (paras. 40-48). The Court focused on the fairness in the second sense as it was obvious that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly.

The majority identified two factors discussed in Danyluk (at pages 494-495) as "highly relevant" to their fairness analysis: the wording and purpose of the legislation from which the power to issue the administrative order derives (at para. 43). Using these two factors the majority concluded that:

  1. The ONCA erred in its analysis of the significant differences between the purpose and scope of the two proceedings; and
  2. The ONCA failed to consider the reasonable expectations of the parties about the impact of the proceedings on their broader legal rights.

Reasonable Expectations

After reviewing relevant provisions of the PSA, the majority concluded that the "legislation does not intend to foreclose parallel proceedings" and that "[this] would shape the reasonable expectations of the parties and the nature and extent of their participation in the process" (at para. 51). In other words, there was nothing in the PSA that would suggest that the disciplinary hearing would be conclusive of Penner's legal rights in his civil action.

The majority also pointed to additional factors, other than the legislative text, that lead to the same conclusion. (at paras. 56-58): First, the civil action commenced well before the administrative proceedings so the parties were aware of the parallel and overlapping proceedings. Second, the majority pointed to a lower court decision which held that the acquittal of a police officer at a disciplinary proceeding did not give rise to issue estoppel in a subsequent civil action. And third, it is reasonable for someone in Penner's position to think that it is unlikely that a proceeding in which he had no personal or financial stake could preclude a claim for damages in a civil action.

Purpose and Scope of Proceedings

With respect to this branch of the analysis, one of the factors the majority highlighted was the differing standards of proof between disciplinary proceedings under the PSA and a civil action: the former requires that the police misconduct be proved on 'clear and convincing evidence' whereas civil standard of proof is on the balance or probabilities - a lower standard. The majority concluded that "[the] prosecutor's failure to prove the charges by 'clear and convincing evidence' does not necessarily mean that those same allegations could not be established on a balance of probabilities. Given the different standards of proof, there would have been no reason for a complainant to expect that issue estoppel would apply if the officers were acquitted" (at para. 60).
The majority also pointed out that applying issue estoppel in this case might actually work to undermine the purpose of the administrative proceedings by attaching undue weight to their results. The risk is that the administrative process may turn into a proxy for the civil action: "[if] it is before the hearing officer, and not the court, that an action for damages is to be won or lost, litigants in Mr. Penner's position will have every incentive to mount a full-scale case, which would tend to defeat the expeditious operation of the disciplinary hearing." (at para. 62).

Further to the above, the majority found that it was unfair to use the decision of the Chief of Police's designate to exonerate the Chief in a subsequent civil action. Although it is not objectionable for the Chief of Police to appoint the investigator, the prosecutor and the hearing officer, applying issue estoppel "had the effect of permitting the Chief of Police to become the judge of his own case" (at para. 66). The majority concluded this is an affront to the basic principles of fairness, but only at the point that the Chief's decision that there was no police misconduct is used to exonerate him from civil liability by means of issue estoppel.

The Minority Decision (LeBel, Abella and Rothstein JJ)

The minority decision focussed on the "twin principles" which underlie issue estoppel: that there should be an end to litigation and that the same party should not be harassed twice for the same cause (at para. 88). The minority contends that these principles focus on achieving fairness and preventing injustice by preserving the finality of litigation. They supported the approach to issue estoppel in the context of prior administrative proceedings articulated in British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422, which moved away from the approach in Danyluk that said a wider discretion should be applied to administrative tribunals than applied to courts. For the majority, fairness is linked to finality, and differences in the process and procedures used by administrative bodies should not be used to override the principle of finality (at para. 103).

Summary

The doctrine of issue estoppel seeks to protect the finality of litigation by precluding the re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively determined in a prior proceeding. But the doctrine also calls for a case by case review of the circumstances to determine whether its application would be unfair even where the preconditions of its application have been met. The principle underlining this discretion was summarized best in Danyuk (at para. 1): "[a] judicial doctrine developed to serve the ends of justice should not be applied mechanically to work an injustice". For now it seems that a flexible approach to the application of issue estoppel is the correct and preferable approach in Canada.

References:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12962/index.do
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc44/2001scc44.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc52/2011scc52.html

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions