加拿大救助义务：你是否依法有义务提供帮助？

Under Canadian common law, there is no general duty to rescue in Canada requiring a bystander to assist or save an injured, ill, or endangered stranger. If you witness a person having a medical emergency or suffering an accident on the street, you are not legally obligated to intervene, render first aid, or even dial 911 solely because a danger exists. However, this absence of a universal duty changes if you created the hazard, share a recognized protective relationship, or voluntarily initiate assistance and subsequently increase the risk of harm.

The distinction between moral decency and legal liability remains a cornerstone of the Canadian legal framework. While society expects individuals to help those in peril, courts separate ethical expectations from legal obligations. Navigating these rules requires examining Supreme Court of Canada precedents alongside specific federal criminal sanctions and provincial statutory protections.

General Common Law Rule: No General Duty to Rescue for Bystanders

The baseline principle in Canadian common law jurisdictions prioritizes individual autonomy over forced intervention. In the leading decision Childs诉Desormeaux案, 2006 SCC 18, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that an individual is not legally responsible for addressing a danger simply by virtue of being in a position to do so:

“Although there is no doubt that an omission may be negligent, as a general principle, the common law is a jealous guardian of individual autonomy. Duties to take positive action in the face of risk or danger are not free-standing. Generally, the mere fact that a person faces danger, or has become a danger to others, does not itself impose any kind of duty on those in a position to become involved.” (蔡尔兹, paras 28–29)

Consequently, in standard circumstances:

• Observing an unconscious, injured, drowning, or endangered individual does not trigger a standalone duty of care.
• Awareness of imminent harm to another person is legally insufficient to establish an obligation to act.
• A moral duty does not automatically translate into a common law duty of care.
• Failing to summon emergency services or refusing to offer aid does not expose a standard passerby to civil tort liability or criminal charges.

The Supreme Court addressed the philosophical basis for this limit in 佩尔卡诉女王, [1984] 2 SCR 232, confirming that rescuing a stranger cannot excuse an unlawful act purely on ethical grounds. The Court observed that expanding the defence of necessity to cover strangers would essentially transform an absence of legal duty into an unbounded obligation: “For this reason the common law has refrained from enunciating either an extended duty to rescue or an expansive right of necessity.”

Exceptions: When a Positive Legal Duty to Act Arises

The rule shielding bystanders is not absolute. In Childs诉Desormeaux案, the Supreme Court highlighted three specific situations where reasonable foreseeability of harm, combined with sufficient legal proximity, establishes a positive duty to act (para 31):

1. Creation or Control of Risk: When a defendant invites third parties into an inherent, obvious hazard that the defendant created or controls.
2. Paternalistic Relationships: Situations involving established supervision and control, such as parent-child or teacher-student dynamics.
3. Public Functions or Commercial Undertakings: Commercial operations or public offices that carry implied protective obligations toward the general public.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reinforced this unified principle in Bonello v. Gores Landing Marina (1986) Limited, 2019 ONCA 127. The court reiterated that establishing a positive duty requires the defendant’s material implication in creating the danger or maintaining control over a risk to which others have been exposed. Furthermore, 博内罗 noted that the law does not require parties to eliminate all hazards, affirming that competent individuals have the right to engage in inherently risky conduct.

Summary of Legal Obligations by Scenario

The following table outlines how Canadian law treats different parties when a person faces severe distress or peril:

Can Helping Someone in Distress Be Considered a Crime?

The act of rendering assistance in good faith is fundamentally protected and encouraged under Canadian law. Performing basic CPR, using an automated external defibrillator (AED), moving an injured individual away from oncoming traffic, or contacting 911 does not constitute an offense. However, criminal exposure can materialize if the rescuer’s conduct crosses into statutory negligence, reckless endangerment, or harmful interference:

• Gross Recklessness and Criminal Negligence (Section 219): If an individual undertakes an intervention with wanton or reckless disregard for the victim’s life and safety, they can face criminal charges. An untrained person attempting dangerous invasive procedures without authority goes beyond an honest mistake and risks severe criminal exposure.
• Undertaking an Act and Abandoning It (Section 217): Stepping in, preventing other bystanders from calling emergency services by claiming the situation is fully handled, and then abandoning the victim in an increasingly compromised state constitutes a breach of undertaking under Section 217 of the Criminal Code.
• Incompetent or High-Risk Medical Undertakings (Section 216): Anyone undertaking surgical or medical treatment, or any lawful act that may endanger life, is legally bound to possess and exercise reasonable knowledge, skill, and care.

For ordinary civil disputes, provincial Good Samaritan statutes insulate responders from liability for simple mistakes (ordinary negligence). Criminal liability arises only when conduct manifests reckless disregard, intentional harm, or marked departures from basic standards of care.

Federal Criminal Code Provisions on Omissions and Inaction

此 Criminal Code of Canada (RSC 1985, c C-46) imposes statutory duties where omissions constitute criminal offenses. In criminal law, liability for doing nothing requires an underlying duty imposed by statute or common law.

Section 215: Duty to Provide Necessaries of Life

Under Section 215(1), individuals are under a positive legal duty to provide the necessaries of life (including essential food, shelter, and medical care) to:

• A child under the age of sixteen as a parent, foster parent, guardian, or head of a family;
• 配偶或同居伴侣；
• Anyone under their charge who is unable to withdraw from that charge due to detention, age, illness, or mental disorder, and cannot independently secure life’s essentials.

Under Section 215(2), failing to perform this duty without lawful excuse is a criminal offense if the omission endangers life or causes permanent health damage. As summarized by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Goforth, 2021 SKCA 20, an omission to fulfill a legal duty constitutes the predicate unlawful act. The Crown must prove that the risk was objectively foreseeable and that the accused’s inaction represented a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person.

Sections 216 through 219: Undertakings, Supervision, and Criminal Negligence

• 章节214： Defines child abandonment to include a willful omission by someone legally responsible for that child’s care.
• 章节216： Requires anyone who undertakes surgical or medical treatment, or any lawful act that may endanger life, to execute that act with reasonable skill and care. It does not mandate that passersby perform medical procedures; rather, it governs those who elect to undertake them.
• 章节217： Dictates that anyone who undertakes an act is under a statutory obligation to complete it if omitting to do so would endanger human life.
• 章节217.1： Imposes a legal duty on supervisors directing work or operational tasks to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm.
• 章节219： Defines criminal negligence. Failing to act can support a criminal negligence charge only when an individual omits to do something that is their duty to do, demonstrating wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. Crucially, Section 219(2) defines “duty” strictly as a duty imposed by law.

Voluntary Assistance: How Starting to Help Can Trigger Liability

While an uninvested bystander has no duty to act, voluntarily stepping in to offer assistance alters the legal calculation. Under common law and Section 217 of the Criminal Code, once an individual intervenes, they assume a legal responsibility not to worsen the subject’s condition.

In 古德温诉 Mainroad North Island Contracting Ltd., 2007 BCCA 81, the British Columbia Court of Appeal explained that assuming responsibility or providing an undertaking changes the dynamic if the victim or external authorities rely on that representation. In that case, a road contractor advised police that a crew was en route to address a road hazard. The court held that by leading police to believe the danger was being actively handled—thereby stopping them from finding alternative solutions—the defendant effectively increased the risk.

A volunteer rescuer can introduce legal exposure under four distinct circumstances:

1. Expressly stating that care or corrective intervention is underway;
2. Inducing reasonable reliance by the injured person or bystanders;
3. Dissuading third parties or emergency professionals from calling official rescue personnel;
4. Leaving the victim in a more dangerous or compromised condition than they were found.

Commercial Operators, Boat Hosts, and Controlled Risks

Special duties of care apply to hosts, transportation operators, and business enterprises that invite the public to patronize commercial activities.

In the Supreme Court of Canada ruling 霍斯利对阵麦克拉伦, [1972] SCR 441, a guest fell overboard from a cabin cruiser. The Court held that the owner and operator of the vessel owed a legal duty to make reasonable rescue efforts, distinguishing the operator from an unconnected bystander. However, the Court clarified that emergency situations require judgment under pressure, stating that an error of judgment made during an immediate crisis does not constitute actionable negligence.

Similarly, commercial profit models can establish affirmative duties. In 克罗克诉圣丹斯西北度假村有限公司, [1988] 1 SCR 1186, a ski resort hosted a tubing competition for financial gain. The Supreme Court held the resort liable for injuries sustained by an intoxicated patron, ruling that commercial promoters of dangerous sports must take reasonable steps to prevent visibly incapacitated individuals from participating.

Volunteer Rescuers vs. Trained Responders

The standard of care expected from a spontaneous civilian rescuer differs from the legal expectations placed on formally trained, organized volunteers.

In Hammond v. Wabana (Town Council), 1998 CanLII 18274 (NL CA), the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that volunteer firefighters cannot be categorized as casual Good Samaritans. Because organized volunteer emergency personnel receive specialized instruction and knowingly accept hazard-response duties, their conduct is assessed against their role. The court determined that a good-faith operational decision by volunteer emergency workers will not trigger liability unless it worsens the hazard and reflects a substantial departure from foundational operational principles.

Provincial Good Samaritan Legislation (BC, ON, MB, NB)

Provincial “Good Samaritan” statutes are designed to encourage voluntary rescue efforts. These laws do not establish a legal duty to rescue; instead, they shield voluntary responders from civil negligence lawsuits when offering spontaneous emergency assistance.

不列颠哥伦比亚省

根据第 1 条 好撒玛利亚人法案, RSBC 1996, c 172, an individual rendering emergency medical services or aid at the immediate scene of an accident or emergency is immune from civil damages, provided their conduct does not amount to 重大过失. Under Section 2, this statutory protection is unavailable to individuals employed expressly for rescue purposes or those who intervene with a view to financial gain.

安大略

此 Good Samaritan Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 2 protects individuals who provide emergency health care or first aid voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation. Protected categories include healthcare professionals rendering off-duty assistance and standard civilians administering immediate first aid. Rescuers remain protected against standard negligence, though exposure remains for gross negligence. Section 2(3) explicitly notes that receiving reasonable reimbursement for incurred expenses does not void the protection.

马尼托巴

Under Section 1 of The Good Samaritan Protection Act, CCSM c G65, volunteers offering emergency medical services, aid, or advice at an emergency scene are shielded from liability absent gross negligence. The protection excludes designated employees and those acting for gain, but Section 3 explicitly extends protection to members of organized volunteer initiatives (such as ski patrols or neighbourhood watches), provided any stipend received is not derived from an employer-employee relationship.

新不伦瑞克

此 Volunteer Emergency Aid Act, SNB 2016, c 17 protects persons acting in good faith who render aid, advice, or emergency medical care without an expectation of compensation. Section 1 excludes liability for standard negligence while maintaining liability for gross negligence. Section 2 clarifies that this immunity does not apply to assistance provided in the course of employment.

If you or your organization are confronting liability concerns arising from an emergency response or require representation regarding allegations under the Criminal Code, consulting an experienced 刑事辩护律师 at Pax 律师事务所 ensures your legal rights are rigorously protected.

常见问题

Can I be sued if I stop to help someone in an emergency in Canada?

In provinces with Good Samaritan legislation (such as British Columbia and Ontario), you are protected from civil liability for ordinary negligence if you provide voluntary emergency aid at the scene without expecting payment. You can only be held liable if your actions involve gross negligence or if you act with a view to financial gain.

Is it ever a crime to help an injured person on the street?

Rendering regular first aid or basic assistance in good faith is not a crime. Criminal charges only arise if an individual acts with criminal negligence (showing reckless disregard for life under Section 219), performs unauthorized dangerous medical procedures under Section 216, or prevents other aid and then abandons the victim under Section 217.

Do I have to call 911 if I see someone having a stroke or suffering an injury on the street?

Under Canadian common law, a casual bystander has no positive legal duty to assist, intervene, or call 911. However, if you created the hazard or share a special supervisory relationship with the person, failing to act may lead to civil or criminal consequences.

What separates ordinary negligence from gross negligence under Good Samaritan acts?

Ordinary negligence involves a failure to take reasonable care under the circumstances. Gross negligence involves an extreme or marked departure from the standard of care, exhibiting reckless disregard for the victim’s safety.

Does a parent or spouse face criminal charges for failing to help a dependent?

Yes. Under Section 215 of the Criminal Code of Canada, parents, guardians, spouses, and caregivers have a positive legal duty to provide the necessaries of life. An omission that endangers life or permanently harms health can result in criminal prosecution.