Brandon Gomes and Michael Da Silva were two 16 year old boys playing against one another in a soccer game. An altercation ensued, and Gomes punched Da Silva in the face.
As a result, Da Silva was injured and Gomes was convicted of criminal assault. Da Silva and his family in turn brought an action for civil damages against Gomes as well as Gomes' coach, the team manager, the Hamilton Sparta Sports Club, its vice president, and the Ontario Soccer Association Inc.
All defendants, with the exception of Gomes, were successful on summary judgment, and the claims against them were dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed and in Da Silva v. Gomes (2018 ONCA 610), the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Gomes' previous conduct showed a risk that he would commit violence against an opposing player.
None of his previous conduct led to this finding. Instead, Gomes' act of punching Da Silva was a sudden and unexpected event that could not have been anticipated by any of the other defendants.
The Court of Appeal specifically approved of the motion judge's reliance on school board cases as useful analogies regarding the standard of care, and confirmed that the law is clear that supervising authorities are not responsible for a sudden unexpected event in the midst of acceptable, safe activity.
Further, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly pointed out the fact that Gomes knew he was not to punch other players, but he did so anyways, impulsively.
Therefore, no preventative discipline would have deterred Gomes such that the assault would not have occurred, and so even if the defendants had breached the standard of care, the plaintiffs' claims against them would fail on causation.
This determination on the standard of care should apply not only to school boards, but also most sport and recreational bodies. Further, the consideration of a causation defence is important where the acts would likely have occurred regardless of whether the defendant has, or has not, met the standard of care.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.