DATE: 20060721

DOCKET: C43266 & C43267

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

ORIENA CURRIE (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – HALTON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, CONSTABLE WENDY CHAPMAN, CONSTABLE WILLIAMSON, METROLAND PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTING LTD, DAN GOSSE and BAIBA PRENNINGER (Defendants/Respondents)

AND RE:

ORIENA CURRIE (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – HALTON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, OWEN GRAY, KIM DUNCAN and MICHAEL JAEGER (Defendants/Respondents)

BEFORE:

GILLESE, LANG and MACFARLAND JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Oriena Currie

appearing in-person

Douglas O. Smith and Paulette Pommells

for the respondents

HEARD & ENDORSED:

July 17, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Robert A. Clark of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 9, 2004.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant and her son were investigated for fraudulent activities connected with a furniture business called “The Village Pine Shop” in Milton. A police investigation led to charges being laid for which the appellant was arrested. The appellant plead guilty to a charge of fraud over $5000, was convicted and sentenced.

[2] The appellant brought two proceedings based on the investigation, charge, arrest and conviction. One proceeding was based on her allegedly false arrest and false imprisonment. The other was for defamation, conspiracy and abuse of authority. The respondents successfully brought summary judgment motions in respect of both proceedings. The appellant appeals from both judgments.

[3] In our view, there is no basis on which to upset either judgment. The motion judge articulated the correct legal test and made no error in his application of that test. On the record, the motion judge was fully entitled to find that there was no genuine issue for trial in either proceeding. The respondents acted lawfully throughout the investigation and had reasonable and probably grounds for laying the charges. The evidence of Detectives Duncan and Gray was that they had an honest belief in the appellant’s guilt. That evidence was not challenged or put into issue by any evidence on the motion.

[4] Similarly, the motion judge was fully entitled to conclude that there was no genuine issue for trial in the second proceeding as there was no evidence of a conspiracy by the respondents to injure the appellant’s business, no evidence of defamatory remarks made by the respondents, no evidence of interference by the respondents in the appellant’s economic relations and no abuse by the respondents of their authority.

[5] Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed each with costs of $2500, inclusive for a total of costs of $5000, all inclusive on the two appeals.