False arrest

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment in a civil action arising from the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for assault during a family law dispute.

The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter violations against her ex-husband, the OPP officers, and the Crown.

The court found that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in the plaintiff's favour, as the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a diversion agreement, and there was no evidence of malice or investigative deficiency on the part of the police.

Against the ex-husband, the court found insufficient evidence of deliberate falsehood to police or malicious intent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against all defendants.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' self-represented statement of claim, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and other torts arising from a high-profile arrest related to an alleged prostitution ring.

The court struck the claim against the Attorney General of Canada without leave to amend, finding no tenable cause of action.

The court also struck the claim against the RCMP due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim to properly particularize their causes of action.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's action for false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter breaches as statute-barred.

The respondent had been detained by the CBSA for 467 days before being deported, but only discovered evidence of alleged CBSA misconduct years later when internal notes were disclosed in separate litigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the presumptive limitation period starting on the date of arrest was rebutted, as the respondent did not have sufficient material facts to discover his claim until the internal notes were disclosed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Jade Elizabeth Thelwell, commenced an action for damages against the Toronto Police Services Board and 16 police officers for alleged wrongful conduct between 2014 and 2019, including false arrest, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, misfeasance, defamation, and breaches of Charter and Human Rights Code rights.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various parts of the claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion in part, striking several claims without leave to amend (e.g., false arrest where a guilty plea or valid warrant existed, negligent investigation against police for complaints, property-based claims for passport), and striking others with leave to amend to provide sufficient particulars (e.g., malice/malicious prosecution, misfeasance, discrimination claims).

Claims relating to the unlawful delivery of the plaintiff's passport to CIC and certain defamation claims were allowed to proceed.

The defendants, Halton Regional Police Services Board and Constable Ross Amore, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff M.W.'s action for damages.

M.W. alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious breach of public duty, malicious prosecution, misfeasance of public office, and Charter rights violations stemming from two police investigations in 2015 and 2016.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all claims related to the March 23, 2016 arrest for assault, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether M.W. was detained and his Charter rights violated during questioning on February 19, 2015, allowing that specific claim to proceed.

Plaintiffs appealed a motion judge's decision striking conspiracy claims without leave to amend and defendants cross-appealed the refusal to strike false arrest claims as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that conspiracy was a substantive cause of action that should not be struck under Rule 25.11, and that the merger doctrine did not apply at the pleadings stage.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal, finding that limitation defences should not be determined before a statement of defence is delivered, absent rare circumstances.

The court granted leave to amend to quantify damages for conspiracy.

The plaintiff was parked in his vehicle with a friend when approached by police.

The police demanded his driver's licence, which he refused to provide, questioning the reason for the stop.

The police forcibly removed him from the vehicle, grounded him, handcuffed him, and searched his vehicle, finding only a Bluetooth device.

He was then released.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, assault, false arrest, and Charter breaches.

The court found the police were conducting a criminal investigation without articulable cause, not a Highway Traffic Act stop.

The detention, arrest, and search were unlawful, and the force used was unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff and his family $59,800 in tort damages, but declined to award additional Charter or punitive damages.

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.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers, against the plaintiff Deana Rotondo.

Rotondo's action for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches had been dismissed.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs for the entire action, including the summary judgment motion.

The court found no reason to deviate from the general rule that the successful party on a summary judgment motion is entitled to costs of both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding unnecessary delay by the defendants and the relevance of a cited case were rejected.

The court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $16,721.30 plus post-judgment interest.

The plaintiffs sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation, false arrest, and Charter breaches following a dramatic police raid on their home.

The raid stemmed from a long-standing neighbourhood dispute over a drainage pipe, which led an investigating officer to obtain a public safety warrant and arrest the plaintiff for mischief and intimidation.

The court found the officer's investigation was negligent, as he failed to interview key witnesses or consider the lack of urgency.

The court also held the arrest was unlawful and the search violated section 8 of the Charter due to material omissions in the warrant application and the unreasonable use of a SWAT team.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for false arrest, negligent investigation, wrongful seizure of firearms, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligence, false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at a house party.

The court found that the police officer assaulted the plaintiff without justification, falsely arrested him without reasonable and probable grounds, and maliciously prosecuted him for assaulting a peace officer.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, special damages for the cost of defending the criminal charge, and punitive damages, totaling $28,503.25.

The plaintiff sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and breaches of her Charter rights following her arrest for keeping a bawdy house.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on their investigation of her massage parlour.

Although a criminal court had previously excluded evidence due to a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant, the court held that the exclusion of evidence and subsequent dismissal of criminal charges adequately fulfilled the functional objectives of the Charter, making an award of damages inappropriate.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against several police officers and the police services board for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and breach of his Charter rights following his arrest for causing a disturbance and assaulting a police officer.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The court found that the plaintiff was severely intoxicated, belligerent, and aggressive on the night in question, and that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, concluding that the arrest and detention were lawful, the investigation was not negligent, and there was no malice or Charter breach.

The Belleville police defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiffs had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after picking up merchandise from Lowe's that was ordered using fraudulent credit cards.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims for false arrest and Charter breaches were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the negligent investigation claim, as the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The defendant police board and officers brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for false detention, false arrest, negligent investigation, and breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The claims arose after a search warrant was executed at the plaintiffs' residence, leading to the discovery of cocaine and evidence of importing prohibited stun guns.

The criminal charges were previously dismissed after the search was found to violate section 8 of the Charter.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for false arrest, false detention, and Charter breaches, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the cocaine found, and that Charter damages were inappropriate as the exclusion of evidence in the criminal trial was a sufficient remedy.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the negligent investigation claim, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine whether the plaintiff bears the burden of proving factual innocence to recover damages.

The applicant, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought a declaration that its insurer owed a duty to defend it in three separate lawsuits alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and defamation arising from animal cruelty investigations.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on policy exclusions for intentional acts, willful violation of penal statutes, and the fortuity principle.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the underlying claims were covered by the policy, the exclusions did not apply (except for one property damage claim), and the fortuity principle did not preclude coverage because the resulting harm was not intended.

The insurer was ordered to defend the actions.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety and for particulars.

The plaintiff's action arose from his arrest for criminal harassment, which was later withdrawn upon him entering into a peace bond.

The court found the statement of claim to be a verbose, disorganized diatribe that failed to properly plead material facts for causes of action including false arrest, assault, intimidation, abuse of power, negligent investigation, and defamation.

The court struck the majority of the pleading, granting leave to amend for some claims and striking others without leave, and ordered the plaintiff to provide the requested particulars.

Following a successful appeal overturning the dismissal of an action and awarding damages for false arrest and trespass, the court was tasked with determining trial costs payable by one defendant.

The successful plaintiffs sought full or substantial indemnity costs exceeding $400,000, arguing the litigation raised issues of public importance and that the defendant advanced meritless positions.

The defendant argued the claim was disproportionate to the modest damages award and that much of the trial addressed unsuccessful allegations including conspiracy and punitive damages.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues while accounting for excessive litigation steps.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims alleging assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and breaches of Charter and human rights.

The action arose after the plaintiff refused to leave a retail store following a dispute over a refund and was subsequently detained by mall security and charged by police.

The court found that the moving defendants neither physically touched the plaintiff nor participated in his detention, arrest, or prosecution.

The evidence showed the detention was carried out by mall security and police after the plaintiff repeatedly refused to leave the premises.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the claims against the moving defendants.