Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Lawrence v. Peel Regional Police Force, 2010 ONSC 6317
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 276/09
DATE: 20101116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HERMAN AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
Parties
BETWEEN:
ANDREW MARK ALEXANDER LAWRENCE
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
– and –
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE FORCE, CAROL LAWRENCE and THERESA MACLEAN
Defendants
(Respondents)
Counsel and Hearing
Joseph Markin, for the Appellant
Eugene G. Mazzuca, for the Respondent, Peel Regional Police Force
Sean Dewart, for the Respondent, Theresa MacLean
HEARD at Toronto: November 16, 2010
Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON J.
[1] The appellant, Andrew Lawrence, appeals the judgment of Kelly J. dated April 16, 2009, dismissing his action against the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board and Theresa MacLean.
[2] He had sought damages in the amount of $150,000 to $250,000 due to Ms. MacLean’s alleged conspiracy with Carol Lawrence, the appellant’s former wife and Ms. MacLean’s client, to bring false allegations against the appellant leading to criminal charges. The action against the respondent Police Services Board was for negligent investigation of the allegations. The appellant was ultimately acquitted of all criminal charges except a breach of recognizance. The trial judge dismissed the action and assessed his damages at zero.
[3] Deference is owed to a trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility. The standard of review respecting findings of fact is that of a “palpable and overriding error” (see Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002), 2002 SCC 33, 211 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (S.C.C.) at para. 10).
[4] Essentially, the appellant takes issue with the findings of fact made by the trial judge and her failure to draw an adverse inference against Ms. MacLean because of Ms. MacLean’s failure to call Carol Lawrence as a witness. In effect, he seeks to have this Court retry the case.
[5] The trial judge gave detailed and careful reasons to explain her findings of fact. She did not find the appellant to be a credible witness, and she gave thorough reasons to explain why she preferred the evidence of Ms. MacLean and the police officers and why she did not accept the evidence of the appellant. In our view, the appellant has failed to point to any palpable and overriding error in her treatment of the evidence. This Court owes deference to her findings of credibility.
[6] Moreover, the trial judge did not err in refusing to draw a negative inference against Ms. MacLean for the reasons that the trial judge gave.
[7] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to Ms. MacLean are awarded on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,500.00. The appellant made serious allegations of conspiracy and perversion of the course of justice at trial against a lawyer that were without any factual basis. He persisted in those allegations in an appeal that essentially challenged findings of fact. In the circumstances, a punitive costs award is justified, as in New Solutions Extrusion Corp. v. Gauthier, [2010] ONCA 348. Costs to the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board are ordered on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,500.00.
[8] I have endorsed the Appeal Record, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given by Swinton J. Costs to Ms. MacLean fixed at $14,500.00 and to the Peel Police Services Board at $7,500.00.”
SWINTON J.
HERMAN J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 16, 2010
Date of Release: November 25, 2010
CITATION: Lawrence v. Peel Regional Police Force, 2010 ONSC 6317
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 276/09
DATE: 20101116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HERMAN AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANDREW MARK ALEXANDER LAWRENCE
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
– and –
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE FORCE, CAROL LAWRENCE and THERESA MACLEAN
Defendants
(Respondents)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 16, 2010
Date of Release: November 25, 2010