When Decisions Become Lawsuits: Real-World Liability in Security - Security Guard Course Inc. Skip To Content

When Decisions Become Lawsuits: Real-World Liability in Security

A security guard decides in seconds. The legal consequences can last for years.

Whether it’s detaining someone, conducting a search, or responding to a confrontation, security guards make decisions that can expose themselves, their employers, and their clients to serious liability.

This liability can take several forms, including criminal charges, civil lawsuits, human rights complaints and reputational damage.

Two cases in British Columbia demonstrate just how costly these decisions can become.

One resulted in a $1.8 million damages award following an unlawful arrest and assault at Metrotown Mall. The other involved racial profiling and discriminatory treatment during a retail security interaction at Canadian Tire, resulting in a human rights complaint that was settled in May 2026.

Although the circumstances are different, both cases highlight the importance of understanding legal authority, communicating professionally, treating people fairly, and maintaining accountability at every level.

What Happened at Metrotown Mall?

In November 2019, security guards employed by Paladin Security confronted a young person at Metropolis at Metrotown in Burnaby, British Columbia.

The guards believed the individual was subject to a previous mall ban.

What began as a routine security interaction escalated into an unlawful arrest, physical assault, and detention.

According to the British Columbia Supreme Court proceedings, the guards:

  • Used excessive force, including pushing the individual down a set of stairs.
  • Carried out an unlawful arrest.
  • Detained the individual in a locked holding room.
  • Denied the individual access to a telephone.

The defendants admitted liability for assault, false arrest and false imprisonment.

The incident caused significant harm, including a concussion, physical injuries, anxiety, depression, and other lasting effects.

In April 2026, the court awarded approximately $1.8 million in damages, including $1 million in punitive damages against Paladin Security.

Importantly, the court’s concerns extended beyond the actions of the guards themselves.

The judge criticized the security company’s response to the incident, including its failure to properly investigate the complaint and take appropriate corrective action.

The decision demonstrated that an organization’s handling of misconduct can become a major source of liability in its own right.

The lesson: An unlawful decision made during a security interaction can have consequences far beyond the incident itself. Failing to address what happened can make those consequences even more serious.

What Happened at Canadian Tire?

The second case involved Richard and Dawn Wilson, a father and daughter from the Heiltsuk Nation, who experienced racial profiling and discriminatory treatment at a Canadian Tire store in Coquitlam, British Columbia.

In January 2020, the pair were shopping while waiting for vehicle service.

During checkout, a security guard employed by Blackbird Security singled out Richard Wilson and searched his backpack in front of other customers.

Dawn Wilson subsequently raised concerns about the incident with a store employee, who responded with racist remarks.

After experiencing difficulties having their complaint addressed, the Wilsons pursued a human rights complaint involving the store, Canadian Tire Corporation and Blackbird Security.

The May 2026 Settlement

The matter was settled in May 2026, before a scheduled tribunal hearing.

As part of the settlement:

  • Blackbird Security acknowledged that its former employee violated British Columbia’s Human Rights Code through racial profiling and discrimination.
  • The Canadian Tire store acknowledged that a former employee made derogatory comments.
  • Canadian Tire Corporation acknowledged shortcomings in how the complaint was forwarded.
  • The organizations agreed to additional training and improvements to complaint-handling procedures.
  • The store and security company committed to objective, race-neutral loss-prevention practices.
  • The settlement included confidential financial compensation.

Representatives also participated in a traditional Heiltsuk washing ceremony as part of a restorative process acknowledging the harm caused.

While the settlement was not a tribunal decision following a full hearing, it included significant acknowledgements and commitments to organizational change.

The lesson: Security decisions must be based on objective, lawful grounds rather than assumptions or discriminatory treatment. Organizations must also take complaints seriously and respond appropriately when concerns are raised.

What These Incidents Have in Common

At first glance, these cases involve very different circumstances.

One centres on unlawful arrest and excessive force. The other involves racial profiling, discrimination and failures in complaint handling.

However, several important lessons apply to both.

1. Decisions Without Proper Legal Grounds

Security guards must understand the legal basis for their actions.

At Metrotown Mall, guards acted without lawful grounds for the arrest and detention.

In the Canadian Tire incident, a security guard singled out a customer for a bag search in circumstances that were later acknowledged as discriminatory.

Before taking action, security guards should ask themselves:

  • What specific behaviour or evidence justifies my response?
  • Do I have the legal authority to take this action?
  • Am I following the appropriate procedures?
  • Could my decision be influenced by assumptions or bias?

If the legal grounds are unclear, guards should reassess their approach and seek appropriate guidance.

2. Unnecessary Escalation

A security interaction doesn’t have to become physical to create serious consequences.

At Metrotown, the encounter escalated into excessive force and unlawful detention.

At Canadian Tire, a discriminatory search was compounded by inappropriate remarks and an inadequate response to the complaint.

Both cases demonstrate how poor judgement and communication can turn an interaction into a much larger problem.

Security guards should focus on resolving situations professionally rather than creating unnecessary confrontation.

3. The Impact on Individuals

Legal proceedings don’t focus only on what a security guard intended.

They also consider what happened and the harm experienced by those affected.

The Metrotown incident caused physical and psychological injuries.

The Canadian Tire incident involved harm to dignity and the effects of racial discrimination on Richard and Dawn Wilson.

Security professionals must recognize that their actions can have lasting consequences for the people they encounter.

4. Organizational Accountability

The responsibility for professional security conduct doesn’t end with the individual guard.

Security companies and client organizations may also face legal exposure, depending on their own conduct, their legal relationships and the circumstances of an incident.

In the Metrotown case, the court specifically criticized Paladin Security’s management response and awarded substantial punitive damages against the company.

In the Canadian Tire case, the settlement included commitments from multiple organizations to improve training, loss-prevention procedures and complaint handling.

Both cases reinforce the importance of effective supervision, clear policies and meaningful accountability.

The Chain of Responsibility in Security

When a security incident results in legal proceedings, several parties may be involved.

Understanding how responsibility can extend beyond the front-line guard is important for everyone working in the industry.

The Security Guard

Security guards are responsible for their own conduct and decisions.

Depending on the circumstances, inappropriate or unlawful actions can expose guards to:

  • Criminal charges
  • Civil liability
  • Disciplinary action
  • Loss of employment
  • Licensing consequences
  • Reputational damage

The fact that a guard is acting during an assigned shift does not automatically protect them from personal responsibility.

The Security Company

Security companies have responsibilities relating to the training, supervision and conduct of their employees.

Depending on the circumstances, an employer may face liability through:

  • Vicarious liability for employee conduct
  • Inadequate training or supervision
  • Deficient policies or procedures
  • Failure to investigate complaints
  • Failure to respond appropriately to misconduct

The Metrotown decision provides a particularly important example.

Of the approximately $1.8 million awarded, $1 million in punitive damages was imposed against Paladin Security, reflecting the court’s serious concerns about the company’s conduct and response.

The message is clear: training, supervision and accountability cannot be treated as optional.

The Client Organization

Many businesses hire professional security companies to protect their employees, customers, property and operations.

Outsourcing security services does not automatically eliminate every potential source of liability.

Client organizations may face legal exposure when their own actions or omissions contribute to an incident.

For example, concerns may arise when clients:

  • Direct security personnel to take unlawful actions.
  • Establish inappropriate or discriminatory procedures.
  • Ignore serious complaints.
  • Fail to address known risks within their own operations.

The extent of any legal responsibility depends on the circumstances and applicable law.

Clients should support lawful security practices, clear reporting procedures and appropriate professional judgement.

Lessons for Security Guards

These cases provide practical reminders that can help security guards make better decisions in everyday situations.

Know Your Legal Authority

Security guards must understand the legal limits of their role.

In Canada, relevant legislation may include the Criminal Code, provincial trespass laws, human rights legislation and provincial security licensing requirements.

Before acting, ask yourself:

  • What did I observe?
  • What legal authority applies?
  • What is my responsibility?
  • Is my response lawful and appropriate?
  • Can I clearly explain why I took this action?

Never assume that wearing a security uniform provides the same authority as a police officer.

When the legal grounds for an intervention are unclear, reassess the situation and seek guidance rather than proceeding on assumptions.

Follow Proper Arrest and Detention Procedures

In retail security, arrests and detentions carry significant legal risks.

Guards must understand the circumstances in which a lawful arrest may be permitted under the Criminal Code and the limitations of their authority.

Common loss-prevention practices may include:

  • Observing an individual select merchandise.
  • Maintaining continuity of observation.
  • Establishing evidence that an offence has occurred.
  • Following established employer procedures.

However, these practices should not be confused with a universal legal checklist.

The authority to make an arrest depends on the specific circumstances and applicable legislation.

Suspicion alone does not automatically justify detaining someone.

Security guards should follow their training, understand the relevant legal requirements and avoid taking action when they lack lawful grounds.

Communicate Clearly and Professionally

Communication can influence whether an interaction is resolved peacefully or becomes more confrontational.

Do:

  • Identify yourself appropriately.
  • Maintain a calm, professional tone.
  • Provide clear and respectful explanations.
  • Listen to concerns.
  • Use de-escalation techniques when appropriate.

Don’t:

  • Make unsupported accusations.
  • Threaten or intimidate people to gain compliance.
  • Create unnecessary public confrontations.
  • Allow frustration or personal feelings to influence your response.

Professional communication helps protect both the people involved and the guard’s own legal position.

Treat People Fairly and Without Bias

Security guards must apply laws and policies fairly and consistently.

Decisions should be based on objective facts and legitimate security concerns, not assumptions about a person’s identity or background.

Race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability and other protected characteristics must never be used as substitutes for evidence of wrongdoing.

The Canadian Tire settlement demonstrates the importance of this principle.

Security companies should establish clear, objective criteria for interventions and ensure employees understand their human rights obligations.

Training in cultural awareness, unconscious bias and anti-discrimination practices can help support fair and professional decision-making.

Understand the Limits on Using Force

Canadian law recognizes limited circumstances in which force may be legally justified, including certain situations involving self-defence, defence of property and lawful arrests.

However, these legal protections are subject to specific requirements.

Security guards do not have unrestricted authority to use physical force simply because someone refuses to cooperate.

Any use of force must be assessed against the applicable legal standards and circumstances.

Guards should understand:

  • When force may be legally justified.
  • The limits of their authority.
  • The importance of necessity and proportionality.
  • When de-escalation or disengagement may be safer.
  • Their reporting responsibilities following an incident.

The safest and most professional response is not always a physical intervention.

What Security Companies Should Do

Proper training is one of the most important ways security companies can reduce risk.

However, training should go beyond simply reviewing policies and procedures.

Effective programs should help employees apply their knowledge in realistic situations.

Important areas include:

  • Legal authority and limitations
  • Scenario-based decision-making
  • De-escalation and communication
  • Cultural awareness and anti-discrimination
  • Appropriate use-of-force principles
  • Incident reporting and documentation
  • Complaint handling and accountability

Training should also be reinforced through supervision, ongoing professional development and clear operational procedures.

The Metrotown case demonstrates that organizational failures can create significant liability even after the original incident has ended.

Security companies must take complaints seriously, investigate concerns appropriately and respond when employees act outside professional or legal standards.

What Clients Need to Understand

Organizations hire security companies because they need professional expertise to help protect people, property and operations.

However, clients also have a role in supporting lawful and effective security practices.

They should avoid:

  • Pressuring guards to perform unlawful actions.
  • Establishing discriminatory expectations or procedures.
  • Setting unrealistic demands that compromise safety.
  • Ignoring complaints involving security personnel.

Instead, clients should support:

  • Proper training and supervision
  • Lawful decision-making
  • Clear communication between management and security personnel
  • Fair and consistent policies
  • Accountability when concerns arise

Security personnel must be able to exercise professional judgement within the limits of their legal authority.

A client relationship should never become a reason to disregard the law.

Why Training Is Essential to Reducing Liability

The incidents at Metrotown Mall and Canadian Tire demonstrate that security work involves far more than enforcing rules.

Guards must understand the legal consequences of their decisions, recognize the limits of their authority and interact with the public professionally.

A poorly handled interaction can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.

Effective security training helps establish the knowledge needed to:

  • Recognize when an intervention is legally justified.
  • Communicate clearly during challenging encounters.
  • Apply policies fairly and without discrimination.
  • Understand the limitations of arrest and use-of-force authority.
  • Document incidents accurately.
  • Make informed decisions under pressure.

Training alone cannot eliminate every risk, but it provides an essential foundation for professional conduct and accountability.

Conclusion: One Decision Can Have Lasting Consequences

The Metrotown Mall and Canadian Tire cases demonstrate three important lessons:

Poor decisions can lead to serious legal consequences.

Poor communication and discriminatory conduct can cause lasting harm.

Failures in organizational accountability can make an already serious situation worse.

For security guards, the most effective way to reduce legal exposure is to make informed, lawful and professional decisions.

That means:

  • Understanding your legal authority.
  • Acting on objective facts rather than assumptions.
  • Communicating respectfully.
  • Treating everyone fairly and without bias.
  • Using force only when legally justified.
  • Following appropriate procedures and documenting incidents accurately.

The consequences of getting these decisions wrong can extend far beyond a single shift.

Civil lawsuits, human rights complaints and court proceedings can continue for years, creating financial, professional and reputational consequences for everyone involved.

At Security Guard Course Inc., we believe proper training is the foundation of professional security work.

Our online training programs help aspiring and working security professionals develop the knowledge needed to understand their responsibilities and make better decisions on the job.

Because in security, knowing what you’re legally allowed to do is just as important as knowing how to do it.

Explore our security training programs at SecurityGuardCourse.ca.

References