Amanda N. Shaw

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) confirming the London Police Service Chief's dismissal of his police misconduct complaint.

The applicant had complained that an officer acted improperly by refusing to investigate his former partner for child abduction and by directing him to leave the police station.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the officer had properly exercised his discretion, as the children were not missing but residing with their mother pursuant to a family court order.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant police service for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and wrongful arrest after criminal charges against him were withdrawn.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during discovery, arguing that communications between the plaintiff and his criminal defence lawyer were relevant to whether the charges were terminated in his favour.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the communications irrelevant to the tort claims and protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived.

The court also declined to order the plaintiff to obtain records for a destroyed cellphone owned by a third party.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.

The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.

However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages against his former partner, several police officers, and the police services board for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and Charter breaches arising from two arrests related to a property dispute.

The court found that two officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for break and enter and breach of recognizance, respectively, and failed to conduct adequate investigations.

The court held the two officers and the police services board liable for negligent investigation and false arrest, awarding $40,192 in damages.

The claims for malicious prosecution and the claims against the former partner and other officers were dismissed.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed their claim against a former police chief as statute-barred.

The appellants argued the limitation period began when they received less redacted police records, rather than the initially redacted records.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellants had sufficient facts to base their claim upon receiving the initial redacted records.

The appeal and the request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for farm properties, or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

The defendants argued the agreement was unconscionable, they were coerced by real estate agents, and the property was not unique.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, rejecting the defences of non est factum and unconscionability, and held that the defendants breached the contract.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not sufficiently unique and damages were an adequate remedy.

Partial summary judgment was granted on validity and breach, with the issue of damages deferred to trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a wrongful dismissal action, specifically disputing the statutory deductions made by the defendant from a $25,000 payment.

The plaintiff argued the payment should be treated as a "retiring allowance" with lower tax, CPP, and EI deductions, while the defendant treated it as employment income based on the settlement wording "payable as wages and subject to all necessary statutory deductions." The court found that the parties had an enforceable settlement and that the defendant had met its obligations, as the agreement left it to the defendant to make "necessary deductions." The court clarified that the ultimate authority to characterize the payment and determine appropriate deductions rests with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Tax Court, not the Superior Court on a motion to enforce settlement.

The plaintiff sued police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights (warrantless entry), excessive force, and negligent transport, seeking damages for injuries sustained during arrest and transport.

The court dismissed claims for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, excessive force, and negligent transport.

However, it found a breach of the plaintiff's s. 8 Charter rights due to the officers' warrantless entry into his home, which was deemed to be in bad faith.

Damages were awarded for psychological injuries (PTSD and depression) causally linked to the incident, and for vindication and deterrence of the Charter breach, totaling $32,500.