| Case-Name: | Wood v Schaeffer |
| Full-Case-Name: | Police Constable Kris Wood, Acting Sergeant Mark Pullbrook and Police Constable Graham Seguin (Appellants/Respondents on cross-appeal) v Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder and Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit (Respondents/Appellants on cross-appeal) and Julian Fantino, Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (Respondent/Respondent on cross-appeal) |
| Heard-Date: | 19 April 2013 |
| Decided-Date: | 19 December 2013 |
| Citations: | 2013 SCC 71 |
| Docket: | 34621 |
| History: | APPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from Schaeffer v. Wood. 2011. onca. 716. 2011-11-15., setting aside Schaeffer v. Woods. 2010. onsc. 3647. 2010-06-23. |
| Ruling: | Appeal dismissed and cross‑appeal allowed |
| Majority: | Moldaver J |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | LeBel and Cromwell JJ |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Fish J |
Wood v Schaeffer[1] is a significant ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning procedural requirements involving incidents arising from police misconduct.
In June 2009, in two separate incidents, officers of the Ontario Provincial Police shot and killed suspects (Minty and Schaeffer) in their investigations.[2] [3] Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, as required by provincial law,[4] investigated and reported. In the Minty investigation, the SIU Director concluded that "the lethal force used was not excessive" in the circumstances, but indicated that all witness officers had been instructed not to write up their notes until they had spoken to counsel. In the Schaeffer investigation, the Director concluded that he could not form reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal offence had been committed, as he could not rely on the information supplied by the police officers. He stated:
The families of the deceased suspects initiated an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a declaration as to the nature of the police duty to cooperate with the SIU's investigations. The officers sought to have the application struck out on grounds of non-justiciability and standing.
At first instance, Low J allowed the officers' motion and struck the application, declaring:
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the ruling was set aside. In a unanimous opinion, Sharpe JA held that the application was justiciable, that the families had public interest standing, and that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues raised in the application without the need to remit the matter to the Superior Court. However, he stated that a declaration could not be granted in the broad terms originally sought:
The matter was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada:
The SCC unanimously agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, and by 6-3 allowed the cross-appeal. It accordingly issued the declaration sought in these terms:
In his ruling, Moldaver J stated:
In dismissing the cross-appeal, Moldaver J held that even the perfunctory consultation contemplated by the Court of Appeal was liable to cause an "appearances problem,"[8] while LeBel and Cromwell JJ felt that the Court of Appeal was essentially correct in determining how and when the right to consult with counsel should not be exercised.[9]
The SIU and the families welcomed it, but police unions such as the Ontario Provincial Police Association claimed that police officers now have less protection than the rest of Canada.[10]
There also continues to be controversy as to the lack of support given to the SIU by the provincial government in pursuing its role in this case and others, which has attracted criticism from the Ontario Ombudsman.[11]