Canada: Negligence And The Standard Of Care In Civil Sexual Assault Cases

Last Updated: February 11 2015
Article by Loretta Merritt

Osgoode PD Webinar Series – Key Issues in Civil Sexual Assault

Negligence 101

  • Three elements:

    1. Duty owed (proximity and foreseeability)
    2. Breach of Duty owed (falling below the standard of care)
    3. Causation

Establishing a Duty of Care

  • Have the courts previously recognized a prima facie duty of care
  • If not, should a new duty of care be recognized?
  • Foreseeability of harm and proximity of relationship. A direct relationship is an important factor in determining proximity
  • Are there residual policy considerations that justify negating the duty?

General Principals Regarding the Standard of Care / Breach of Duty

  1. The question is, what would a reasonable person/institution in similar circumstances do?

    • Negligence is the doing of something a reasonable person would not do; or
    • Negligence is the failure to do something a reasonable person would do
  2. Industry standards are important but not determinative
  3. Institutions are judged according to the "standards of the day"

    • Date of the alleged negligence is key
  4. Courts will consider any statutory duties
  5. When did society generally become aware of the prevalence of childhood sexual assault?

    • Not in the late 1960's or early 1970's (Blackwater v. Plint)
    • In the early 1980's police were instructed to thoroughly investigate childhood sexual abuse allegations (D.W. v. Canada)
    • In the mid 1980's complaints of childhood sexual abuse were prevalent (D.W. v. Canada)

The Chart

  • 42 reported decisions where negligence has been discussed by the courts in civil sexual assault cases
D.W. v. Canada (Atorney General), [1999] S.J. No. 742, 1999 SKQB 187, Maurice J. Residential School 1977-1980 Facts: Male plaintiff sues perpetrator, William Starr, administrator of the Residence and the Crown, who was the operator of the Residence and employer of Starr. Plaintiff was a student at Gordon Student Residence. He was sexually abused on two occasions. First incident involved Starr fondling plaintiff's penis and inserting fingers in plaintiff's anus. Second incident involved Starr forcing plaintiff to perform fellatio on him. Plaintiff was between 6-9 years old at the time of assault.

Allegations: Plaintiff alleges a number of grounds of liability on behalf of the Crown: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability.
  • Negligence: Plaintiff alleges the Crown was negligent in failing to properly evaluate, monitor, and investigate Starr, which resulted in the plaintiff being sexually abused by him. [no further details alleged].
  • Breach of fiduciary duty: Plaintiff argues that Crown breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff when it failed to prevent Starr's battery of him.
Held: Crown not liable based on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of non-delegable duty. Crown was vicariously liable.

Reasons: No Negligence
  • Crown was not aware of any sexual misconduct involving Starr and students until many years after he left
  • Evaluations of Starr portrayed him as a competent administrator with the best interests of the students at heart.
  • One staff member brought suspicions of abuse to the attention of officials, however Starr provided a credible explanation
  • Even if the allegations had triggered an investigation, it is unlikely that the sexual misconduct would have been uncovered

    • the students had not complained and they looked upon Starr with awe and fear
    • Because of his position of power, Starr cowed the staff and students into silence
  • At the time (late 1960's and early 1970's) society was generally unaware of the prevalence of child sexual abuse
  • It was not until the early 1980's that the police were instructed to thoroughly investigate allegations of child sexual abuse, and it was not until 1985 that complaints of child sexual abuse became prevalent
Reasons: No Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • A breach of fiduciary duty does not lie unless the fiduciary abused his or her position of power
  • While Starr abused his position of power over the plaintiff for personal advance, the Crown did not.

Analysis of the Case Law

  1. Factors favouring a finding of no negligence
  2. Factors favouring a finding of negligence
  3. Cases dealing with institutional response to disclosure of abuse by the plaintiff
  4. The negligent non-offending parent/bystander cases

Factors in Favour of Finding of No Negligence

  • No actual knowledge of sexual misconduct,

    (D.W. v. Canada)
    (V.P. v. Canada)
    (J.L. v. Canada)
    (R.E.E. v. W.O.T.)
  • Good evaluations (D.W. v. Canada)
  • Suspicions investigated in1969 and 1971 and perpetrator provided credible explanation (D.W. v. Canada)
  • Single incident of suspected but unproven touching does not equal a trend (A.D. v. C.D.)
  • No causation because victims unlikely to disclose even if the abuse were investigated (D.W. v. Canada)
  • No causation because more visits to foster home would not have resulted in a disclosure of the abuse (R.E.E. v. W.O.T.)
  • In the early 1970's most teachers had close relationships with students and there was no Board policy against same (K.G. v. B.W.)
  • In the late 1970's it was not negligent to have no programs of awareness or protection against abuse. (S.G.H. v. Gorsline)
  • Assaults were carried out in secret and even when parents were faced with reports of abuse they could not believe abuse was a reality (Blackwater v. Plint)
  • The plaintiff was determined to keep the relationship a secret. (A.D. v C.D.)
  • Absence of monitoring or supervision of priests was not negligent because sexual abuse was not really "on the horizon" (in the late 70's and early 80's) (John Doe v. O'Dell)

Factors Supporting a Finding of Negligence

  • There is an ongoing duty to monitor and supervise children in foster care. No contact between the social worker and child after placement is negligent (M.B. v. B.C.)
  • Negligence findings based on : No visits to a foster home for several months combined with issues concerning prior placements, double the recommended number of children and unhappiness of children not being probed by social workers. (K.L.B. v. B.C.)
  • Failure to evaluate foster father's suitability (i.e., no home study at all) combined with failure to have proper supervision where the home was in an isolated location with no telephone and inaccessible in the winter for months with evidence of only 2 visits in 14 months was found to be inadequate supervision. (J.A.K.E. v. B.C.)
  • In a group home, housing a plaintiff with a sexually aggressive roommate and failing to protect plaintiff from a known predator. (R.A.R.B. v. British Columbia)
  • In 1976, (in child protection cases) where there were allegations of sexual abuse, steps would be taken to apprehend children or remove offenders. Failure to do so was negligent. (A.J. v. Cairnie)
  • The standard of special diligence in placing a child is not relaxed in cases where the child is being returned to the care of their parents after removal. Home studies and criminal record checks are still required, as is ongoing supervision. (C.H. v. B.C.)
  • Failing to do a new risk assessment before removing a supervision order on a natural father in the face of child protection reports is negligent (D.M. v. R.M.)
  • A church and Crown were found negligent for abuse in a residential school for failing to detect signs of abuse that were apparent to a reasonably prudent teacher. There were no rules of conduct for priests. The priest had students in his quarters. The children gossiped. The problem was apparent to a novice teacher at the local public school who then acted swiftly. (F.S.M. v. Clark)
  • A priest having children alone in his chambers (high frequency plus overnight visits) is not in conformance with general practice and should raise questions. The Church was treating the issue of sex as taboo, and providing no education or counselling. (J.R.S. v. Glendenning)
  • Failing to act on prior complaints of abuse of children by a priest and taking no steps is negligent. (K.M.M. v. Darcey's of London)
  • In a jury decision:

    • Teacher was given a key by the Superintendent of Education with no stipulations as to its use and this contravened board policy.
    • The principal was aware the teacher "preferred the company of young males"
    • Parents had expressed concerns
    • There were homophobic slurs spray painted on the outside of the classroom and rumours
    • The principal's determination to "watch him like a hawk" but do no more was negligent (S.L. v. R.T.M.)

Failure to Respond Appropriately After Disclosure

  1. Adults in the military

    • They moved her not him
    • She had to stand beside him at the military trial and answer questions posed by him (with no one there from the Armed Forces to support her)
    • They gave her the same supervisor as his common-law wife
    • A lack of sensitivity does not equal harassment and is not sufficient to ground liability. (J.L. v. A.G. Canada)
  2. Church residential school case

    • Doing nothing after disclosure and depriving another defendant (the crown) the opportunity to contain the physiological injury and denying the plaintiff rehabilitative measures to deal with the trauma shaming guilt was negligent. (F.F.M. v. Coarke)
  3. In 1974 failing to render assistance after abuse exposed and failing to take steps to reduce its impact was negligent. (J.R.S. v. Glendenning)
  4. In 1979 (shortly after the abuse occurred) failing to attend to the needs of the plaintiff was not negligent considering the lack of knowledge at the time. (K.M.M. v. Diocese of London)
  5. In 1992 after plaintiff's disclosure, the failure to provide counselling or funds combined with the Bishop's callous conduct may have aggravated the injury but was not negligent. (P.D. v. Allen)

Negligence of the Non-Offending Parent-Bystander

  1. A parent being withdrawn and uninvolved in not sufficient to find negligence. (M.B. v. B.C.)
  2. The wife of a perpetrator who abused the plaintiff was negligent where:

    • She knew of his propensity to abuse young girls
    • She knew of his criminal record for inappropriate sexual contact with young girls
    • She knew of his sexual behavioural problem
    • She was willfully blind to the abuse of the plaintiff (M.L.H. v. R.G.R.)
  3. The mother who failed to protect her daughter was negligent when she knew of the abuse. The fact that she was lacking in personal resources to intervene is not a sufficient defence. (K.K. v. K.W.G.)
  4. The aunt to whom the plaintiff reported her abuse was negligent

    • She gave her 12 or 13 year old niece an IUD without her knowledge in order to prevent pregnancy and hide the abuse by the uncle. (F.A.N.G.H v. Baines)


  1. Are there any patterns?

    • type of Instituion
    • date of abuse/alleged neglience
    • Date of decision
  2. Are experts always necessary?

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

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

Loretta Merritt
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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