Kevin McGivney

The appellant, a former police officer, was investigated for corruption and bribery.

Police obtained a wiretap authorization based on an affidavit that deliberately misdescribed a police agent as a confidential informant.

The appellant was charged criminally based on intercepted communications, but the charges were eventually withdrawn by the Crown due to anticipated Charter breaches regarding the wiretap.

The appellant then sued the investigators and police board for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other civil wrongs.

The trial judge dismissed the action, admitting the wiretap evidence and finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wiretap evidence was properly admitted in the civil trial to establish the truth of the grounds for the charges, and that the trial judge made no error in finding that the investigators had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving party defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the court should apply the appropriateness exception under s. 137.1(7) to award partial indemnity costs instead of the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no basis to depart from the full indemnity presumption, and awarded the defendants their costs on a full indemnity basis (and substantial indemnity for one defendant on a pro bono retainer), totaling over $383,000.

The plaintiffs, a newspaper publisher and his company, brought an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and wrongful interference with economic relations against several city councillors, school board trustees, and a media company.

The action arose from statements made by the defendants criticizing articles published by the plaintiffs as homophobic and transphobic, and advocating for the cessation of city advertising in the plaintiffs' newspaper.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the other claims had merit, and failed to show that the defendants had no valid defences, including fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication.

Furthermore, the court found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

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 plaintiff sued the police and Crown Attorneys for negligent investigation, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an acquittal on a murder charge that involved a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The Crown Attorneys moved to strike the plaintiff's claim and a crossclaim brought by the police for negligent legal advice.

The court struck the plaintiff's claim against the Crown Attorneys, finding it barred by absolute common law immunity, which only allows claims for malicious prosecution.

However, the court refused to strike the police crossclaim for negligent legal advice, finding it was not plain and obvious that Crown Attorneys do not owe a duty of care to police when providing legal advice during an investigation.

The court also held that statutory immunity under s. 8 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act applied to the plaintiff's claim but not the crossclaim.

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.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $15,419.95.

The plaintiffs argued there should be no order as to costs because the defendants had refused to mediate and the case was a matter of public interest.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, and awarded the defendants their requested costs payable in any event of the cause.

Police officer plaintiffs commenced a civil action alleging negligence, defamation, malicious investigation, racial discrimination, and abuse of process arising from internal discipline proceedings under the Police Services Act following a public complaint.

The defendants moved to strike the claim on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour relations regime governing police discipline and grievance arbitration.

Applying the principles from Weber v. Ontario Hydro and subsequent jurisprudence, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned workplace discipline governed by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act, thereby ousting the court’s jurisdiction.

However, the court held it was possible that a properly pleaded claim for misfeasance in public office could fall outside the labour relations scheme if it alleged intentional abuse of public authority.

The statement of claim was struck against most defendants with leave granted to amend solely to plead misfeasance in public office.

The applicant sought declarations that police actions during the 2010 G20 summit violated his Charter rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly, and alleged battery by an officer after he refused to permit a search of his backpack near the G20 security perimeter.

Police prevented him from proceeding southbound toward the summit site unless he permitted a search.

The court held that the police conduct was authorized under common law ancillary police powers and the Police Services Act duty to preserve the peace, given the heightened security context following violent riots the previous day.

Applying the Waterfield test and Supreme Court jurisprudence on investigative detention and security measures, the court found the interference with liberty minimal and justified.

The application was dismissed and the battery claim rejected as de minimis and protected under statutory authority.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs for non-party production of investigative materials from the Special Investigations Unit under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs.

Although the plaintiffs obtained the production order, the court declined to award costs.

The court held that the SIU reasonably opposed the motion given its public policy mandate, confidentiality assurances to witnesses, and status as a non-party to the litigation.

The evidence and submissions from the SIU assisted the court in determining whether the exceptional remedy of non-party production should be granted.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.