New Proposed Apology Legislation in Ontario

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · October 7, 2008 · Filed Under Legal Reform · 6 Comments

Just over a month ago I said 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.

xPD from Slaw.

Post tags: apology act, apology legislation, Chris Bentley, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, slaw

Comments

6 Responses to “New Proposed Apology Legislation in Ontario”

Costa Ragas on October 7th, 2008 8:31 pm

Not sure I agree with you on this one, Omar.

If a company is negligent, causes some wrongdoing that injures another, and then publicly accepts responsibility for this wrongdoing, negligence and injury (my civilian hat is on today), why shouldn’t the apology be used as evidence against the negligent party?

I suppose the question is one of fact vs. one of law. Does “responsibility” equal “liability?”

Well, let’s look at it from another perspective. If you have been injured by someone, but someone who is not legally liable for the injury apologizes, what does that apology really mean to you? Very little, in my estimate.

Point is, if responsibility and liability are not in any way linked, then the value of the apology to the individual is reduced. Although it may aid in some sort of moral healing, the proposed legislation would not take care of the rest… ex) promote accountability, reduce litigation and strain on justice system, etc…
Omar Ha-Redeye on October 8th, 2008 7:18 am

The apology is intended to help maintain a relationship with the public and retain shareholder confidence, and work cooperatively with other agencies and the public to minimize the effect or damage.

The current legislatory scheme simply deters defendants from openly speaking publically after a crisis or disaster. The proposed legislation will not result in any changes in actual findings of negligence.

The same legal test that was used before will still be used after: establishing a duty of care, and demonstrating a breach of that duty.

See the links for a more in-depth explanation.
Micheal LawMaster on October 8th, 2008 9:57 am

Why beneficiraies are Doctors, Nurses and Police?
It seems like racism to other professionas.

Human Rights shall be avail equally to everyone.

As Ontario Courts are full of FUN, even judges shall be allowed to apologize after making wrong statements.
Devin Johnston on October 8th, 2008 12:41 pm

Something like this came up in a problem that we had in a class last year. A doctor administers a drug to a patient that ends up exacerbating the condition rather than helping. A few days later, the doctor apologizes. The problem with using the apology as evidence of negligence is that it tells us nothing about whether or not the conduct of the doctor was reasonable in the circumstances. All it tells us is that it turned out badly (which we already know) and that the doctor feels bad about it (which we can infer from the doctor not being a total dick).
Costa Ragas on October 9th, 2008 12:21 am

I don’t know… I’m still not convinced. The Apology legislation would certainly help with bullet 2. But as for bullets 1, 3, and 4 from the original post above, I just don’t see how such legislation could possibly do the things the Ministry of the Attorney General is claiming.

And regarding the legal test, that’s all fine. But with regard to the evidence issue, is prohibiting a publicly made apology which itself could contain indicators of the cause of an injury to another be forbidden? I’m not so sure that we should simply knock out apologies, if they could potentially contain something useful… Particularly with companies less “virtuous” than say Maple Leaf… Say a company which would try and destroy any internal evidence of any wrongdoing or negligence?

Granted, I haven’t read the proposed Ontario legislation (is it online yet?), but if it’s anything like the BC legislation from the previous post, my feeling is this legislation might prematurely tie a victim’s hands, by prohibiting them from entering the apology into evidence.
The Dark Site of Crisis Communications | Social Media Mafia on June 21st, 2009 6:17 pm

[...] said before that the new Apology Act in Ontario may change things, but it hasn’t been around long enough to know for sure. The [...]