Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Solomonvici v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2010 ONCA 85

DATE: 20100201

DOCKET: C50927

Armstrong, Lang and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Rudy Solomonvici

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Toronto Police Services Board, Helen Song and Elaine Strosberg

Defendants (Respondent)

Rudy Solomonvici, acting in person

Michele Wright, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 26, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Darla A. Wilson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 21, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the dismissal of his claim for negligent investigation against the Toronto Police Services Board.

[2] The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s claim on the primary basis that the appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. To establish a foundation for his action for negligent investigation, the appellant must establish that the respondent did not meet the standard of a reasonable police officer. On this issue, the motion judge accepted the affidavit evidence of the police officer that detailed his specific reasons underlying his decision to lay charges against the appellant. There was ample evidence to support the motion judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s material failed to set out sufficient specific relevant facts to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. For example, the appellant points to evidence such as the video recording, which may call into question a certain aspect of the complainant’s version of events. However, in exercising the discretion to lay the charges, the police relied, not just on one factor, but on a constellation of factors, which were canvassed by the motion judge. Moreover, the standard of a reasonable police officer is not a “standard of perfection or even the optimum judged from the vantage of hindsight”. A mere error of judgment does not breach the standard of care. See Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] S.C.J. No. 41 at para. 73.

[3] We therefore agree with the motion judge’s conclusion that there is no genuine issue for trial. The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,000, inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax.

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“Susan E. Lang J.A.”

“Russell Juriansz J.A.”