CITATION: Andrushko and Her Majesty the Queen and Matthews, 2010 ONSC 1780
COURT FILE NO.: DC-09-168ML
DATE: 2010-03-25
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ROBERT ANDRUSHKO and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF ONTARIO et al. and JENNIFER MATTHEWS
BEFORE: MACPHERSON J.
COUNSEL: Paul D. Amey, for the Plaintiff
Sara Blake, for the Defendants (Moving Party)
HEARD: March 22, 2010
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Leave to appeal granted.
[2] From my review of the cases, there is a conflict between the decision of Kent J. in this case and the decision of Granger J. in Kernohan v. Ontario, [2009] O.J. No. 3000.
[3] Although both cases involved similar facts (civil suit for wrongful detention and assault by a police officer) the interpretations of sections 69 and 80 of the Police Services Act are quite different. In my opinion and pursuant to Rule 62.02(4), it is desirable that leave be granted so that the issue of whether in the context of a civil lawsuit, the personnel file of the police officer should be disclosed can be clarified.
[4] Costs of Motion reserved to Divisional Court panel.
MacPherson J.
DATE: March 25, 2010
CITATION: Andrushko and Her Majesty the Queen and Matthews, 2010 ONSC 1780
COURT FILE NO.: DC-09-168ML
DATE: 2010-03-25
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ROBERT ANDRUSHKO and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO et al. and JENNIFER MATTHEWS
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice W. MacPherson
COUNSEL: Paul D. Amey, for the Plaintiff
Sara Blake, for the Defendants
ENDORSEMENT
MacPherson J.
WM:am
DATE: March 25, 2010