Edward A. Ayers

The plaintiff brought a civil action seeking damages for negligent police investigation and malicious prosecution following his arrest for criminal harassment and breach of probation.

Although he had been acquitted of the criminal charges, he alleged that police officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that family members knowingly provided false information leading to the charges.

The court held that the police investigation met the applicable standard of care and that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the plaintiff.

The evidence did not establish malice by the police or that the family members initiated or continued the prosecution through false information.

The plaintiff also failed to prove damages through medical or other evidence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the risk of harm was not reasonably foreseeable, noting there was evidence to support this conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality, though the court expressed hope that costs would not be requested.

The appellants, police officers and a police services board, were wholly successful on appeal in an action brought by the respondent regarding her treatment in police custody.

The appellants sought costs of $150,000 for all levels of court.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants, finding that the case raised complex issues of general public importance regarding police duties to detainees.

Given the public interest nature of the litigation and the respondent's severe financial hardship, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The respondent was detained in a police holding cell and attempted to hang herself using her brassiere.

Police officers forcibly removed her clothing and, when she refused to move into the view of a video camera, handcuffed her to the cell bars while naked.

The trial judge dismissed her action for negligence, assault, and Charter breaches, finding the police acted reasonably and in accordance with policy.

The Divisional Court ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to consider her dignity and privacy interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the police officers' appeal and restored the trial judge's dismissal, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the evidence regarding her dignity and privacy, and that there was no palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, experienced a psychotic episode after failing to take her medication.

The police Emergency Task Force (ETF) was called to her apartment, where she had barricaded herself in the bathroom.

An officer fired a muzzle blast tear gas gun through the bathroom window at close range, causing severe injury to the plaintiff's left eye.

The trial judge found the ETF negligent for using unreasonable force when less lethal means were available, and found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent for voluntarily stopping her medication.

The Toronto Police Services Board appealed the findings of negligence and causation, and the admission of the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the finding of contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions, though it varied the judgment to reflect that the Board, rather than the Chief of Police, bears liability under the Police Services Act.

The successful respondents sought to have the costs of the motion and the appeal fixed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court held that the costs of the motion were a matter for the motions judge.

The Court fixed the costs of the appeal payable to the respondents on a partial-indemnity basis at $7,500 plus assessable disbursements and G.S.T.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by icy roads and sued the City of Scarborough.

OHIP sought to advance a subrogated claim against the City for the cost of the plaintiff's insured medical services.

The City argued the claim was barred by s. 30(5) of the Health Insurance Act and s. 267.8(18) of the Insurance Act because it was insured under a motor vehicle liability policy.

OHIP argued the bar only applied when the City was sued as an owner or operator of a vehicle, not as a road authority.

The Court of Appeal dismissed OHIP's appeal, holding that the plain wording of the statutes barred the subrogated claim regardless of the capacity in which the City was sued.