This is also true in Canada:
Ultimately, the plaintiffs brought a claim against the Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”), alleging negligent investigation and seeking a declaration that the police should reinvestigate their son’s death as a homicide. The TPSB brought a motion to strike the claim under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that no duty of care was owed by police to victims of crime and their families and that the plaintiffs’ claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was statute barred.
The plaintiffs argued that the police owed a duty to them, as family members of a victim of crime, to conduct “a reasonably diligent investigation of [their son’s] death and to properly classify the death as a homicide or undetermined.” The motion judge disagreed, holding that the Court of Appeal had already determined in Norris v Gatien and Wellington v Ontario that no duty of care existed between police and the victims of crime and their families. The motion judge found that it was plain and obvious that the TPSB did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs and struck the claim in its entirety.
The appeal court panel ruling upheld trial judge Justice Ross Collver’s
decision, which stated that the police are guardians and not guarantors of
public safety. Collver found the police officer was negligent, but said
there was no direct evidence to suggest the RCMP’s failure to investigate her complaint caused the violent outburst.