Does a police officer's failure to investigate and prosecute for breach of duty constitute a duty of care to a private individual?

A similar conclusion was reached by Marocco J. in Fockler v. Toronto (City), [2007] O.J. No. 11 (S.C.J.), at para. 72 when he decided that the investigation and prosecution of police officers for breach of duty as well as any discipline of the officers were matters of public law and public interest and did not create a duty of care to a private individual. As in Norris, the court noted that had the officers been found guilty of misconduct, the plaintiffs might have derived some satisfaction. However, this was insufficient to establish a private cause of action.

The duty to a family member was also considered in Porter v. Brampton (City), [2002] O.J. No. 5132 (S.C.J.). In that case, the plaintiff’s wife had died in a fire. The plaintiff claimed that the police officer was negligent in the conduct of the investigation. He further claimed that, as a result of the negligent investigation, he was compelled to conduct his own investigation, was put to expense and lost time from work and suffered mental and emotional distress. Backhouse J. concluded that there was no private law duty of care in the circumstances.