Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog
This edition of the Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog addresses the viability of a civil tort claim against the OPP and/or the Crown arising from a poorly done police investigation into a fatal car crash.
The Tort of Public Misfeasance
What the Tort Requires
The leading case is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse (2003). That case arose after police officers fatally shot a young man during an attempted arrest. The shooting triggered an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit, and the officers involved were required by statute to cooperate by, among other things, remaining separated, making themselves available for interviews, and producing their notes. The victim’s family alleged that the officers deliberately failed to comply with those obligations and that senior police officials knowingly failed to ensure they did.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that those allegations, if proven, were capable of establishing the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court explained that public misfeasance is a narrow tort intended to protect citizens from the deliberate misuse of governmental authority. It is not enough to show that a public official made a mistake, exercised poor judgment, or carried out public duties incompetently.
The Court identified two essential elements of the tort.
- First, the public official must deliberately engage in unlawful conduct while exercising public powers or performing public duties. the Court confirmed that “unlawful conduct” can include the deliberate failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty.
- Second, the plaintiff must establish the required mental element. The public official must know that the conduct is unlawful and know that it is likely to harm the plaintiff, or be recklessly indifferent to both the unlawfulness of the conduct and the likelihood of harm.
That distinction is important. Mere negligence, carelessness, poor judgment, or a misunderstanding in the course of police conduct is not enough.
How Courts Have Applied Odhavji
Subsequent decisions demonstrate that courts have applied Odhavji (2003) cautiously. The mental element remains the main difficulty, and courts are reluctant to let allegations of negligence be reframed as bad faith without concrete supporting evidence.
Manoharan v. Taylor (2025) illustrates the kind of allegations that may satisfy that requirement. The plaintiffs alleged that an OPP officer investigating their eligibility for cannabis retail licences approached the investigation with the predetermined intention of ensuring that the licences would be refused. Rather than conducting an independent investigation, the officer allegedly repeated serious organized-crime allegations supplied by another officer without attempting to verify them, despite the absence of corroborating evidence. Those allegations later unravelled before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found in the plaintiffs’ favour.
