Davin Charney

The plaintiff sued the Crown (Ontario) for false arrest and negligent investigation arising from her arrest by OPP Constable Morrison on December 2, 2017, following 911 calls from her husband reporting she had a knife and was threatening self-harm.

The plaintiff was charged with assault, assessed at a hospital, and released on a Promise to Appear.

Twenty days later, she entered into a Common Law Peace Bond with Crown consent, and the assault charge was withdrawn.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on the husband's account that she had punched him approximately 10 times.

The court also held that the Peace Bond disposition precluded the tort claims, as entering into a Peace Bond does not constitute a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary a forfeiture order made by consent on July 28, 2023, requesting the return of replica firearms, deactivated firearms, and an antique revolver, and seeking permission for a licensed gunsmith to examine seized property.

The applicant claimed material change in circumstances based on alleged mistakes by police in cataloging firearms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as it constituted an attempt to re-launch a previously disposed appeal of a consent order.

The court emphasized the principle of finality and found no compelling case of miscarriage of justice warranting reopening.

This decision addresses motions for partial summary judgment brought by the Crown and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action by Keith and Marisa Hobbs.

The court considers whether the plaintiffs' claims are statute-barred by limitation periods, and whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the presence of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and prosecution.

The court grants partial summary judgment dismissing the false arrest and certain Charter claims as time-barred, but allows claims for negligent investigation, negligence, discrimination, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation to proceed to trial.

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, Daniel Knox, Harrison Knox, and Sherry Cole, sued His Majesty The King in Right of Ontario and several police constables for unlawful arrest and battery.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Daniel Knox and Sherry Cole arrived at a scene where Harrison Knox had already been arrested.

The court found that Daniel Knox assaulted an officer, justifying his arrest and the use of a taser.

Sherry Cole also assaulted an officer, justifying her arrest and the force used.

Harrison Knox's initial arrest was found lawful based on reasonable grounds.

The court dismissed all claims, concluding that the arrests were lawful and the force used by police was justified.

The plaintiffs sought an order for relief from the deemed undertaking rule to use a "Show Cause Brief" (a document obtained through discovery and a freedom of information request) in an existing complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and a contemplated private criminal prosecution against two police officers not named as defendants in the civil action.

The defendants opposed, arguing a breach of the rule and potential prejudice.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached the deemed undertaking rule but granted leave to use the Show Cause Brief, determining that the public interest in police accountability outweighed the diminished prejudice to the defendants, particularly given the public nature of the document and its availability through other means.

The defendants brought a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff's statements of claim arising from alleged wrongful arrests related to an investigation into unpasteurized milk.

The Crown argued the claims against two police officers were statute-barred and the claims against a provincial investigator failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim against the officers was issued in time despite late service, and the pleadings against the investigator adequately alleged the necessary elements of the torts.

The appellant challenged the Toronto Police Services' (TPS) authority to impose bag searches as a condition of entry into Allan Gardens during the 2010 G20 summit, alleging tortious conduct and Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal found that the TPS lacked legal authority, as agents of the City under the Trespass to Property Act, to create such a condition.

The court held that the police conduct infringed the appellant's freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), right against arbitrary detention (s. 9), and right against unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) under the Charter.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was awarded modest Charter damages.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a largely successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $26,687.94 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, M.W., argued for a significant reduction to $8,807.02, citing modest means and the defendants' partial, rather than complete, success.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff's arguments but found the proposed reduction too substantial.

Considering the defendants' "large part" success on the summary judgment motion, the volume of materials filed, and a comparative case, the court exercised its discretion to award the defendants $25,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The applicants were successful in their underlying matter and sought elevated costs due to the respondents' disregard for previous court orders concerning a right-of-way.

The court found the applicants' counsel's hourly rate and time spent reasonable, noting the necessity of the proceedings.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicants $16,971.24 in all-inclusive costs, payable by Brian Douglas Coldin and 1387881 Ontario Inc.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement for year-round vehicular and pedestrian traffic over the respondents' land, along with injunctions to prevent interference.

The respondents conceded a seasonal easement but proposed relocating it to a new road and limiting its use to seasonal.

The court ruled that the relocation request was not properly before it, affirmed the easement as year-round, and granted injunctions against the respondents for interfering with the easement, while allowing for one southerly gate for security.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for alleged Charter breaches, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the case was pursued in the public interest.

The defendant sought a modest costs award, noting the plaintiff's decision to traverse the action from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court and his rejection of two Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the early offers to settle and the plaintiff's assumption of risk.

The defendant, Toronto Police Services Board, moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiffs, Riaz Bagha and Sajidha Bagha.

The plaintiffs' action alleged negligent investigation, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, stemming from extortion charges laid against them that were later withdrawn.

The defendant argued that peace bonds entered into by the plaintiffs were dispositive of the claims and that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that peace bonds do not automatically bar malicious prosecution or negligent investigation claims, requiring a "Mammoliti analysis" into the underlying reasons.

Significant factual disputes existed regarding the investigation's thoroughness, the accuracy of police synopses, and the circumstances surrounding the peace bonds.

The court concluded that there were genuine issues requiring a trial and that the summary judgment process was not suitable for a fair and just determination on the merits, dismissing the defendant's motion.

The plaintiff, Luke Stewart, sued the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged violations of his Charter rights (freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, arbitrary detention, unreasonable search and seizure) during the 2010 G20 summit.

Stewart was briefly detained and his backpack searched after he breached a police perimeter at Allan Gardens, which had been established with a condition of entry requiring bag inspections for weapons due to security concerns.

The court found that the police acted lawfully and reasonably under the Trespass to Property Act and their common law powers to maintain public safety.

It concluded that Stewart's Charter rights were not infringed, and even if they were, such infringements were reasonable and demonstrably justified in the unique circumstances of the G20 protest demonstrations.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation with a City of Mississauga bylaw enforcement officer who attended the defendant's property to investigate a property standards complaint.

The defendant claimed he was the victim and that the officer assaulted him.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as unreliable and incredible, finding numerous internal inconsistencies and evasiveness.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, corroborated by video evidence, the 911 call, and police observations.

The court found the defendant deliberately struck the officer in the face with a camera he was holding, causing a significant injury that left a permanent scar.

The defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon.

Following the court’s earlier decision declining to certify a proposed class proceeding, the parties addressed the issue of costs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs had received funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario, which indemnified them against adverse cost awards.

The parties and the Law Foundation agreed that the costs of the certification motion would be payable to the defendant.

The court issued an endorsement reflecting the parties’ consent that costs be paid to the defendant in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Crown charged two defendants with possession of prohibited weapons, controlled substances, and firearms offences.

Following a Charter voir dire and trial, the co-accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant Ball pleaded guilty to possession of brass knuckles and controlled substances but maintained not guilty pleas to firearms charges involving a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum handgun.

The central issue was whether the handgun was a functioning firearm as defined in the Criminal Code or a disabled/inoperable item.

The Crown relied on photographs, text messages, and expert evidence.

The defendant testified the handgun had been rendered inoperable and he was attempting to defraud acquaintances by misrepresenting it as a real firearm.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a functioning firearm and dismissed the firearms charges.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and cannabis marijuana, possession of a prohibited weapon, and firearm-related offences arising from items seized during the execution of search warrants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants under section 8 of the Charter and the accused Olsson also challenged her arrest under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants, establishing both spatial and temporal nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.

The court also found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Olsson.

Both Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with mischief, assault on police, obstruction of police, and assault with intent to resist arrest arising from his conduct during a protest at Toronto City Hall against budget cuts.

The Crown called seven police officers; the defence called the accused and two witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assault on police (pushing PC Hopkinson) and obstruction of police, but acquitted him of mischief and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court also dismissed Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding no unlawful detention, no unreasonable search, and no lost evidence constituting a Charter breach.

Following a successful civil action involving police conduct and Charter-related issues, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request for costs.

The plaintiff sought legal fees exceeding the damages award obtained at trial.

The court found the requested fees disproportionate to the modest recovery and concluded the matter, while important, was not legally complex.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the hourly rate and compensable hours, finding the file had been over-lawyered.

Costs were awarded at a reduced amount reflecting proportionality while acknowledging the significance of the issues and imbalance in bargaining power.