open to statutory authorities, this apprehends to what was said previously. Authorities are given a

duty to follow the

Charter

in order to protect but to also maintain protection towards an

individual. In this case, the legal issue that came up tot he matter, in regards to private law was

duty of care. Did the MTPF breach their duty of care? The conclusion of this matter stemmed

from the realm of negligence. To establish a private law duty of care, foreseeability of risk must

coexist with a special relationship of proximity.

In regard to this case, the pre-existing factor

18

that the MTPF knew about the previous rape alterations from Callow, and did not provide

knowledge to anyone or most specifically women in the area, created the breach of this duty. The

plaintiff claimed that while she was not informed about Callow, the police used her or anyone for

that matter as "bait" in order to find closer evidence in the means of finding Callow. This

principle was first pointed out and approved during the Supreme Court of Canada Case,

Kamloops (City) v Nielsen 1984.

Kamloops

dealt also with the breach of duty of care after son

building a home for his father did not abide to the standard rules that were placed by a building

inspector. After re-selling the house, the owner (Nielsen) filed a complaint to the city of

Kamloops, due to their negligence to file a work stop order or anything to fix the maintenance of

the building. The principle defined in this case describes that the sufficient relationship or

proximity or neighbour or such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness

on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter. With the understanding of this rule, the

duty of care that the MTPF are made to provide to all of the public was certainly breached by

their understanding of the situation, and failure to take action to prevent any wrong-doing to

further happen. It is the role of the MTPF to provide that protection and it is why that they would

be help responsible for the action of damage that was caused amongst Ms.Doe.

Overall wishing the case there are many way in order to describe how the Court dealt

18

Ibid

para 164

with the Charter arguments as well as the idea of

"public defence" amongst statuary authorities.

It is amongst the responsibility

of the authorities to follow standard protocol and hence provide

the mot amount of protection that can be deemed as possible. We see this take place in other

cases such as the principle approved case of

Kamloops

. The negligence act when it comes to

previsionary authorities are acts that should not be taken likely. In the realm of the law, it is clear

to see that not everything can be justified as easily as it seems to be set out. There are many

boundaries but also many open areas within those boundaries that create the need for cases such

likes these; to open doors for cases that could in the future arise