Charetina Lougheed

The self-represented plaintiffs in a malicious prosecution action brought a motion to dismiss or stay a related Provincial Offences Act property standards prosecution, alleging it was an abuse of process and a SLAPP proceeding.

They also sought permanent restraining orders against the municipal defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the request for a stay was res judicata as it had been previously dismissed by another judge.

The request for permanent restraining orders was also dismissed because such relief requires a full adjudication of rights and was not pleaded in the statement of claim.

The plaintiff's action against police defendants, alleging Charter breaches, negligent investigation, falsified evidence, and assault, was dismissed after a lengthy trial where the plaintiff failed to prove any allegations and was found to be an incredible witness.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought partial indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered the seriousness of the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations and his conduct in forcing a lengthy trial.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $367,704.87, finding the request fair and reasonable.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligent investigation, assault and battery, misfeasance of public office, and conversion of property following his arrest on drug trafficking charges that were later stayed.

The plaintiff alleged the police relied on fabricated information to obtain wiretap authorizations and used excessive force during his arrest, causing severe injuries including deep vein thrombosis.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on reasonable grounds and the police did not breach their duty of care.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's claims of excessive force, finding his injuries were minor, his testimony lacked credibility, and his severe medical issues were pre-existing.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter against the defendant police services board and individual officers.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's arrest and detention for domestic assault and uttering death threats.

The plaintiff alleged that the police failed to properly investigate by not seeking his version of events and discriminated against him based on race and gender, noting that his spouse was not ultimately prosecuted despite admitting to striking him first.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the plaintiff.

The court held that the police's failure to interview the plaintiff was dictated by his Charter rights to silence and counsel, and that the different treatment of the parties was based on the evidence of the plaintiff's escalating violence, not discriminatory motives.