Late ambulance intervention

You are having dinner at your friend’s house when he collapses. You recognize the signs of stroke. You have done your first aid course and know that, in this type of situation, the speed with which we intervene is crucial. You call the emergency services and inform them of the situation, but they take a long time to get to the scene. Once they arrive, paramedics hurry to send your friend to the hospital so he can be treated. We explain that he will get by, but not without some sequelae that could have been avoided thanks to a faster and more effective intervention.

Can your friend sue the city for compensation for the after-effects caused by the late intervention of paramedics?

Mr. Lambert addresses this issue by explaining the applicable legislation using case law examples.

The responsibility of cities and municipalities

First of all, it should be noted that the State and its agencies enjoy protection with regard to the political decisions they take. This means that neither the government nor municipalities can be held accountable for the policies they choose to adopt or reject. For example, we will not be able to sue a city because we fell on an icy sidewalk if it decided not to offer a snow removal service.

On the other hand, municipalities may be held liable for operational decisions. This refers to how they choose to perform and administer the service they have decided to offer. When the city enters this sphere, it loses its immunity; it is then subject to the rules of civil law and an action for civil liability becomes possible.

The city will therefore have to act diligently in the exercise of its functions in order to provide adequate, safe and effective services. As in the majority of civil liability actions, it will be necessary to successfully demonstrate the fault committed by the city, the damage caused as well as the causal link between these two elements.

Duty to behave diligently

Let’s take the example of a case against the City of Beauport that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Like most cities, the City of Beauport has decided to set up an aqueduct system and a firefighting service.

A fire breaks out at a hotel complex and firefighters are dispatched to the scene. While they are just beginning to fight the fire, they lack water and the standpipes are dry. It is noticeable that the water is frozen in the aqueducts and the firefighters have to wait 45 minutes before they can tackle the fire again.

In that decision, the judges of Canada’s highest court concluded that the city, while not responsible for the creation of the fire, was at least liable for the damages resulting from the firefighters’ failure to act within a reasonable time.

Indeed, the law imposes on cities an obligation of means with regard to operational decisions. This means that they are not required to anticipate and mitigate all possible scenarios, but rather to behave diligently and take all possible measures to prevent foreseeable accidents.

In this case, the city should have ensured that the water facilities and the fire department it provided were regulatory and fit for purpose by regularly checking the condition of the piping and this omission therefore constitutes a fault.

Duty of availability

With respect to ambulance service, the city’s obligation is similar to that explained above. It must, to the best of its ability, ensure that it offers a reliable service and an effective response time.

For example, the city has a duty to ensure the availability of its respondents and their vehicles. Thus, it commits a fault in the practical performance of its duties by failing to hire more paramedics or to order more vehicles if the number of human or material resources proves insufficient.

Unfortunately, this is what happened in the tragic case of Hugo St-Onge. The 24-year-old died after a cardiac arrest while the ambulance took 17 minutes to arrive. Experts specify that an intervention time of more than 15 minutes makes the chances of resuscitation almost zero. This case occurred in the City of Lévis and research shows that the resources enjoyed by the municipality at the time corresponded to that of a city with a population of 45,000 inhabitants. However, since Lévis represents a population of 145,000 inhabitants, a court examining this situation could find fault on the part of the city.

However, each situation is a case in point and all the facts must be analysed as a whole. Keep in mind that there are several other factors to consider in this type of case, such as:

• the distance between the ambulance at the time the call is received and where it needs to go;
• the medical condition of the person in need of assistance;
• clarity of information and directions provided by the person who called the ambulance.

Do not hesitate to contact our firm if you or a loved one has suffered a similar case.

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow our Facebook page so you don’t miss our weekly legal capsules on different legal topics!