CITATION: Foster v. ADT Security Services Canada, Inc., 2007 ONCA 653
DATE: 20070926
DOCKET: C46008
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, GOUDGE and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
TRACEY MARIE FOSTER
Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
ADT SECURITY SERVICES CANADA, INC., KAZOKU INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, CITY OF TORONTO, TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD, METROPOLITAN TORONTO (MUNICIPALITY) COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE JULIAN FANTINO, FORMER INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE MICHAEL J. BOYD, CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM BLAIR, ONTARIO CIVILIAN COMMISIONER ON POLICE SERVICES, STAFF SERGEANT BRUCE SMOLLETT, DETECTIVE DAVID NEEDHAM, DETECTIVE SUZANNE WILSON, SUPERINTENDENT PAUL GOTTSCHALK, DETECTIVE DALE CONNELL, STAFF SERGEANT JOHN BOYCE, POLICE CONSTABLE MARTIN YU, POLICE CONSTABLE KELLY MARTIN, POLICE CONSTABLE JENNIFER CASH, SERGEANT JILL HUNT, JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V, JANE DOE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, JOHN DOE VI, JANE DOE II, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE, DETECTIVE JAMES BRIGGS, DETECTIVE ROBERT JOHNSTON, PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA, ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, JOHN DOE VII, JOHN DOE VIII
Defendants (Respondents)
Tracey Marie Foster appearing in person
W.J. Manuel for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Heard and Orally Released: September 19, 2007
On appeal from the judgement of Justice Frank Marrocco of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 25, 2006.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The defendants in issue are collectively referred to as the Crown defendants. The claim as presently framed includes the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services among others. It is accepted that the claim should be brought against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario and we will refer to that entity as one of the defendants.
[2] There are three arguments made on appeal. It was argued that the statement of claim pleaded a legitimate cause of action against the Crown in Right of Ontario under s. 3(2) of the Police Services Act. Whether or not any of the provisions of s. 3(2) of the Police Services Act can be relied on to support a claim based on breach of any of the duties described in that section, there are no facts pleaded that would sustain such a claim.
[3] The second argument relates to the potential liability of the OPP and its officers. While the OPP no doubt had jurisdiction to maintain the peace and enforce the laws in Toronto, they do not, under s. 19 of the Police Services Act, have responsibility for policing in Toronto. We agree with the motion judge’s disposition of this application at para. 7 of his reasons.
[4] The third argument, and it’s not really an argument but a concession, relates to the claim against the Ontario Civilian Commissioner of Police Services. The appellant does not seek to pursue that claim. We agree with her concession.
[5] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
[6] Costs to the respondents in the amount of $3,000.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“S.E. Lang J.A.”```