All providers
Sign in
Sign up to use Supreme Court of Canada Judgments
Firecrawl Alexandria
Public records

Supreme Court of Canada Judgments

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada from the Court's own decisions site (decisions.scc-csc.ca, run by Lexum): full-text search, judgments by year, citation and docket lookup, and each judgment's metadata and reasons for judgment in English or French.

Try in Agent
Find Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the duty of care owed by police

Try Supreme Court of Canada Judgments now.

Choose an example or ask your own question.

Supreme Court of Canada Judgments
TRY ASKING
1Request
number

Decisia item id, from the other functions or a decision URL (/item/2382/).

string

Page language: 'en' (default) or 'fr'. Every judgment is published in both official languages.

number

Most characters of reasons to return (default 30000).

5 credits
Codefollows the fields above
const result = await firecrawl.scrape({
  alexandria: {
    provider: "decisions-scc-csc-ca",
    capability: "court-cases/get_decision",
    options: {
      item_id: 2382,
      max_chars: 1500,
    },
  },
});
2Response example

This is a sample shape. Press Run to see live data from Supreme Court of Canada Judgments.

{
  "case_information_url": "https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/31227/",
  "collection": "Supreme Court Judgments",
  "decision_date": "2007-10-04",
  "docket_number": "31227",
  "item_id": 2382,
  "judges": [
    "McLachlin, Beverley",
    "Bastarache, Michel",
    "Binnie, William Ian Corneil",
    "LeBel, Louis",
    "Deschamps, Marie",
    "Fish, Morris J.",
    "Abella, Rosalie Silberman",
    "Charron, Louise",
    "Rothstein, Marshall"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "neutral_citation": "2007 SCC 41",
  "observed_at_ms": 1792977746214,
  "on_appeal_from": "Ontario",
  "pdf_url": "https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/2382/1/document.do",
  "reasons_offset": 0,
  "reasons_text": "The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by\nThe Chief Justice —\nI. Introduction\n1 The police must investigate crime. That is their duty. In the vast majority of cases, they carry out this duty with diligence and care. Occasionally, however, mistakes are made. These mistakes may have drastic consequences. An innocent suspect may be investigated, arrested and imprisoned because of negligence in the course of a police investigation. This is what Jason George Hill, appellant in the case at bar, alleges happened to him.\n2 Can the police be held liable if their conduct during the course of an investigation falls below an acceptable standard and harm to a suspect results? If so, what standard should be used to assess the conduct of the police? More generally, is police conduct during the course of an investigation or arrest subject to scrutiny under the law of negligence at all, or should police be immune on public policy grounds from liability under the law of negligence? These are the questions at stake on this appeal.\n3 I conclude that police are not immune from liability under the Canadian law of negligence, that the police owe a duty of care in negligence to suspects being investigated, and that their conduct during the course of an investigation should be measured against the standard of how a reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted. The tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada, and the trial court",
  "reasons_total_chars": 156661,
  "report_citation": "[2007] 3 SCR 129",
  "source_url": "https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2382/index.do",
  "subjects": [
    "Professional law",
    "Torts"
  ],
  "title": "Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board"
}

Related providers

Browse the library