Common law frequently imposes liability for an omission where the defendant has a duty to act or, as the case may be, to speak. The question depends on whether the defendant has assumed a responsibility toward the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has relied on that assumption of responsibility. The liability imposed upon the Crown under this Act is vicarious. For the Crown to be liable the suppliant must establish that an officer of the penitentiary, acting in the course of his employment, as I find the guard in this instance was acting, did something which a reasonable man in his position would not have done thereby creating a foreseeable risk of harm to an inmate and draw upon himself a personal liability to the suppliant. From time immemorial the duty of every constable, gaoler, or warder into whose care the custody of any prisoner or other person is committed, has been to keep that prisoner in safe custody.
Canadian jurisprudence involving statements of claim from inmate suicides is rather scarce.
Nevertheless, we believe that the Correctional Service of Canada's duty includes that persons with custody of an inmate must take all reasonable steps to avoid acts or omissions which, when reasonably foreseen, would be likely to harm the inmate for whom they are responsible. In the absence of Canadian jurisprudence, the British cases may be of some help in measuring the extent of the duty of care principle. However, because he was also violent, the inmate could not be placed in the prison hospital wing, where a continuous watch could be kept on him. Instead he was put in a cell where prison officers observed him at 15-minute intervals. Between two 15-minute inspections, the inmate committed suicide.