IntroductionSince police officers have the right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, the public raises concerns about a negligent investigation. In the case of Hill v Hamiton-Wentworth, Mr Hill was accused of robbery and was later proven innocent. Mr. Hill filed a lawsuit against the police officers for negligence in the investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Hill's appeal. Furthermore, the majority of the court recognizes the existence of the tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under the code of diligence and without any tortious act of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the minority argument holds that the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police were negligent, the minority argument is more compelling than the majority. Tort of Negligent Investigation In general, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or a party to follow a standard of care, which means failing to do what a reasonable person does or doing what a reasonable person would not do. From the perspective of interests, the tort of negligent investigation is a crime against the private interests of an individual, a company or a government due to a negligent investigation. Whether there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to the person under investigation and what the standard of care is. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation exists only when a loss or injury to the suspect occurs and the loss or injury was caused by a negligent investigation. While police officers have the right to investigate the suspect, the officers' duty of care to the suspect existed and the officers had a legal duty to look after Mr Hill. ... half of the record ... is found in Mr. Hill's case given the position established by the majority ruling in this case. Conclusion When police officers investigate a suspect, especially a criminal suspect, the public interest was against it and officers have a duty of care to the general public for the purposes of public safety. Meanwhile, private interest was also against it, and officers have a duty of care to the suspect to ensure the suspect's rights and avoid charging an innocent person. To balance these two conflicting interests, a clear standard of care must be established so that police officers can follow procedures to prevent negligent investigations. ReferenceBoyd, N. (2010). Canadian law: an introduction. Cengage Learning.Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 SCR 129. Retrieved from: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/article/2382/index. do