West v. Ontario, 2015 ONCA 147

ENDORSEMENT

1The motion judge struck the plaintiff’s claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation on the ground they were commenced beyond the two year limitation period in the Limitations Act. But the motion judge permitted the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim to pursue her allegation that the defendant has infringed her privacy rights by mishandling her personal information – her fingerprints and photographs.

2The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her claim for negligent investigation. Ordinarily the cause of action for that claim would accrue when the plaintiff was acquitted on December 2, 2011. Thus, when she commenced her claim in February 2014 she was out of time. The plaintiff however, contends that the negligent investigation claim and the breach of privacy claim are interconnected and at least on a Rule 21 motion the negligent investigation claim should not be dismissed.

3We do not accept this contention. The two claims protect different legal interests. The tort of negligent investigation protects accused who are improperly charged, convicted or imprisoned because of a negligent investigation. This tort is therefore distinct from the plaintiff’s breach of privacy claim.

4Finally we see no error in the motion judge’s costs award. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. Costs are payable to the defendant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.