October 7, 2008
Omar
Ha-Redeye
EasyReader is temporarily unavailable. We're fixing some things associated with it. We hope to have it back in service soon.
Just over a month ago I said right here on Slaw,
…government officials should also review legislation relating to liability of public apologies so that responsible companies like Maple Leaf are not penalized in the process.
It seems someone was paying attention.
A new proposed law would address this issue. The Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario said in a release today,
The Apology Act would, if passed:
- Allow individuals and organizations, such as hospitals and other public institutions, to apologize for an accident or wrongdoing, without it being used as evidence of liability in a civil legal proceeding under provincial law
- Help victims by acknowledging that harm has been done to them — an apology is often key to the healing process
- Promote accountability, transparency and patient safety by allowing open and frank discussions between patients and health care providers
- Enhance the affordability and speed of the justice system by fostering the resolution of civil disputes and shortening or avoiding litigation.
B.C., Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have already enacted similar legislation.
Michel-Adrien Sheppard covered this topic earlier in the year.
Respond: make a comment | read the 5 comments
Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print
| Bookmark & Share
More: in Substantive Law | from Omar Ha-Redeye
|
the count:
6195 posts | 8615 comments
... a per saltum project from Slaw ...
Our simple-to-remember rewriting of the URL for the Supreme Court of Canada — And lessupremes.ca works as well, bien sûr.
Gavel Busters
It's time to bring the hammer down on Canadian sites that mistakenly use the gavel as a symbol of law. Help us wipe out this scourge! Learn more on our Gavel Busters page.
The Friday Fillip Collections
Some end-of-week frivols fastened in folios for your enjoyment ...
Selected Fillips from 2006 2007
[2008 2009 coming soon ... ]
Slawstalgia
See how things used to be on Slaw:
-
the page from June 5, 2006, when we'd be going for just about a year...
-
the page from May 13, 2010 [PDF], nearly four years later...
-
"Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens."
-
Read this book and you will know whether you are more likely to be a happy lawyer at age 30 or age 60, why you can tell a lot about a firm from looking at its walls and windows, whether a 10 percent raise or a new office with a view does more for your happiness, and whether the happiness prospects are better in large or small firms.
-
"The Lake Shore Limited runs between Chicago and New York City without crossing the Canadian border. But when it stops at Amtrak stations in western New York State, armed Border Patrol agents routinely board the train, question passengers about their citizenship and take away noncitizens who cannot produce satisfactory immigration papers." If you haven't already said "This is how it begins" here's another reason to.
-
On Monday, August 23, 2010, over 300 individuals charged during Toronto’s G20, nearly two months prior, had their first appearances at the courthouse at 2201 Finch Ave. West in North York. Although I had not been retained by any of those whom I assisted with bail on a pro-bono basis, I decided to head over to court to see what was happening.
-
This came to me the other day, sitting in my car, thinking about how law students don’t know anything about secondary sources and just insist (said disdainfully, and as if I had dirt in my mouth) on looking for answers on Westlaw or Lexis as if it will just come to them if they ask.
-
Evan Chesler, the presiding partner of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of the world’s largest law firms, wrote an article in 2009 called “Kill the Billable Hour”. It has not been killed, but he is confident that clients will continue to ask for alternatives.
-
In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain.
-
“Music, libraries, and baseball: those are three things I’ve loved since I was very young.”
-
"I believe that net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time," declared Democratic Senator Al Franken at Thursday's public hearing on the Internet, held in his home state of Minnesota. Unless it's freedom of religion," he added, "which, until last week, I thought we had kind of worked out."
-
|
The Ontario government’s Bill 108 expressly excludes from its ‘safe harbour’ proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act. This means that apologies can be used as evidence of fault in provincial prosecutions. The Ontario bill is thus narrower than the statutes in BC, SK and MB.
None of the legislation can apply to the use of apologies in Criminal Code prosecutions, as they are governed by the Canada Evidence Act.
The Ontario bill goes on to note that a conviction in a provincial or federal prosecution can be used in evidence in a civil or administrative proceeding. No doubt this was true for criminal convictions anyway, but the subsection serves as a warning to would-be apologizers.
Some of the press material for other jurisdictions’ statutes say that they permit sincere apologies. Nothing in the text limits its application to sincere apologies; any apology is covered.
However, nothing in the legislation guarantees that an apology will have any particular legal effect, except that it can’t itself be used to show fault. So an insincere apology may not turn away wrath, or reduce the chance that the victim will sue. An apology is not an excuse in law and this legislation does not make it one.
On October 15, Alberta introduced its own apology legislation, by way of an amendment to the Evidence Act (as was done in Saskatchewan). Bill 30 is very much like the Uniform Apology Act, except that it does not apply to prosecutions. Ontario made a similar, if more wordy, exception in its bill.
Alberta is moving right along. The bill was introduced on October 15 and started Second Reading on the 16th. The status is here.
While this Bill seems well intentioned, the
exclusion of an admission of liability from becoming evidentiary in a civil suit serves only to protect the defendant and the insurance companies. It does nothing to appease the plaintiff/victim. An apology, and an admission of liability are “feel good” items and may indeed assist in counselling a victim, but if that person is now unable to recover for lost future wages or for the financial impact of having become handicapped as a result of someone’s negligence, then that apology is emotionally meaningless and is purely protective of insurance companies. In that respect, the Bill is morally bankrupt.
UPDATE: Ontario’s Apology Legislation, Bill 108, passed 3rd reading on March 10, 2009.
Some of the arguments against the Bill being “morally bankrupt”, as Jeff puts it, are:
- People are now in practice stopped from apologizing either through their own fear of liability, their lawyers’ advice, or their insurance companies’ prohibition. If apologies are to be encouraged, legislation like this is needed.
- An apology that is merely an expression of regret without a taking of responsibility is much less likely to be psychologically effective or even accepted by the victim. The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report in 2006 makes that very clear. That report launched the movement for apology legislation in Canada.
- An apology is likely to be more effective when spontaneous, or at least not obviously lawyered, and if the apologizer has to parse the apology word for word to avoid admitting fault – ideally while taking responsibility – it is less likely to be given.
- Admissions of fault may not be used in evidence if they are given in mediation or in settlement negotiations. The Apology Act adds apologies to these privileged occasions for admissions of fault, in order to encourage them – the same reason that they are protected in these other instances. The frank apology is considered more valuable than the evidentiary value of the admission.
- It will be rare that the admission of fault that accompanies an apology is the only evidence that supports liability. The apology is not an excuse in law. Its content may be used to find admissible evidence. (The apology is not a ‘poisoned tree’ whose fruit would be excluded from evidence.) So the chance of someone being seriously injured and failing to recover solely because of the missing apology/admission is slim.
FWIW five provinces (including Ontario) have now passed apology legislation, all basically on the same model, i.e. including admissions of fault. Alberta passed its law the same month it was introduced, last October. Ontario is the only one in which it actually encountered debate.