Eugenio Mazzuca

The plaintiff's action against the Peel Police was dismissed after a 27-day trial.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $434,377.49.

The court found that a police officer had fabricated evidence against the plaintiff, which constituted conduct bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the costs award to the defendant.

However, because the self-represented plaintiff unnecessarily lengthened the trial by raising irrelevant issues, the court awarded the defendant a modest costs sum of $50,000.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Peel Police Services Board for assault, battery, and harassment spanning from 2000 to 2005.

The claims centered on numerous traffic stops, a 2003 arrest where the plaintiff alleged an officer planted a knife, and a 2005 search warrant execution where the plaintiff was tasered multiple times.

The court found that while one officer had planted evidence in 2003, the plaintiff suffered no provable injury to support a claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Regarding the 2005 search warrant, the court held that the police had reasonable grounds to execute the warrant and that the use of the taser was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The action was dismissed.

This decision addresses several mid-trial issues in a civil action where the plaintiff, James Perreault, alleged harassment by the Peel Regional Police, including an improperly obtained search warrant.

The court ruled that Perreault could use evidence regarding the warrant's improper obtainment to support his existing claims of assault, battery, and general harassment, but could not introduce new torts like fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation due to limitation periods and insufficient pleadings.

The court upheld informer privilege, confirming it would not be breached as innocence was not at stake.

Regarding inadvertently disclosed information, the court ordered redaction of documents and the production of a redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) to protect the informant's identity while ensuring trial fairness.

Costs for the motion were reserved for the end of the trial.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her action against the police defendants for delay.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred by failing to consider her alleged mental illness, her involvement in multiple other proceedings, an order for trial together with another action, and by refusing to consider evidence filed in a companion motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, exercise of discretion on wrong principles, or palpable and overriding error in the Master's decision.