Lawrence v. Canada ( Royal Canadian Mounted Police )
T-1714-94
Wetston J.
8/1/97
10 pp.
Action in damages for injuries arising from fall from horse during beginner equitation class offered by RCMP-Plaintiff, constable with RCMP, had volunteered for equitation course in order to become member of RCMP musical ride-Plaintiff alleging suffered broken tailbone causing irritable bowel syndrome, abnormal esophageal reflux, insomnia and weight gain-Took medical leave of absence with pay for approximately two years-Issues (1) whether plaintiff barred from recovering damages by virtue of Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA), ss. 3 and 9 and Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA); (2) whether defendant liable in negligence for damages caused; (3) whether defendant breached Occupiers Liability Act, s. 3-Action dismissed-(1) S. 3 not bar as plaintiff alleging negligence against Crown arising from negligence of employee, course instructor, Cpl. Doucette-Vicarious liability herein will be proven through actions of Crown servant, course instructor, and not RCMP as private employer-However, CLPA, s. 9 effectively barring plaintiff from proceeding against Crown herein as compensation paid or payable within meaning of Act, s. 9-Under GECA, s. 4 eligible government employees, as plaintiff by virtue of RCMP Superannuation Act, s. 34, entitled to compensation under Act where, as here, have been caused personal injury by accident arising out of and in course of employment-Furthermore, GECA, s. 12 providing employees entitled to compensation barred from claiming against Crown other than through GECA-In addition, well established in case law employee entitled to compensation under GECA would have no other recourse against Crown-Clear Parliament has provided comprehensive scheme for addressing claims for injuries sustained while performing RCMP service-Despite above conclusion, (2) and (3) (negligence and occupiers' liability) considered-As to negligence, horse appropriate for beginner's riding class-In view of conflicting evidence as to where accident took place (plaintiff alleging "lower paddock" where conditions rough, unsafe for beginners, defendant alleging "lower menage" where conditions adequate), finding plaintiff failed to satisfy legal burden of proof-Consequently, failure to establish, on balance of probabilities, breach of standard of care owed to plaintiff-Therefore, action in negligence cannot succeed-Similarly, standard in case under Occupiers' Liability Act, s. 3 (assimilating occupiers' liability with modern law of negligence) not breached-Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 3-Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. G-5, s. 4-Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50, ss. 3, 9, 10-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-11, s. 34.