Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-03-19 Docket: C65503

Judges: Feldman, Pepall and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between

Aaron Goldman and Naila Seunath Plaintiffs (Appellant)

and

Jeffrey Weinberg, Oak Ridges Medical Clinic, Tammy Varsamis, Tracey Ingram, Orla Garriques, Jessica Ma, Kelly Kirkwood, John Spanton, Bank of Montreal, Nick Hawrylyshyn, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, Fiona Bruce, Scott McKay, Keith Moxley, Victor Dabuzinkskas, Michelle Powell, Hunter Smith, Joanne Bennett and Toronto Police Services Board

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Joseph Kary, for the appellant

Kathryn Shani, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: March 19, 2019

On appeal from: the order of Justice Patrick Monahan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 1, 2018

Reasons for Decision

[1] Aaron Goldman appeals from the order granted by the motion judge that dismissed the appellant's action on a summary judgment basis.

[2] The action arises out of two events that involved the appellant and the police defendants, who are the respondents in this appeal. The action has been summarily dismissed against all of the other defendants pursuant to earlier summary judgments.

[3] One event arose out of the appellant's complaint that an employee of a company owned by the appellant had stolen a large sum of money from the appellant. The appellant reported this matter to the Toronto Police who conducted an investigation and concluded that the appellant had not, in fact, lost anything as a result of the actions of the employee. The appellant claims that the police were negligent in their investigation of this matter.

[4] The other event involved complaints made by the appellant that his step-son was being physically abused by the boy's father. The appellant was, at the time, in a relationship with the boy's mother, who is the other named plaintiff in this action. She, however, consented to a dismissal of her action some years ago. The appellant complained about these matters to both the York Regional Police and the Toronto Police. The appellant claims that both police services were negligent in their investigation of this matter.

[5] The motion judge concluded that the appellant's claims should be summarily dismissed on two grounds. One was that there was no duty of care owed by the police to the appellant and the other was that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the applicable limitation period.

[6] In our view, the motion judge was correct, based on the record before him, in concluding that there was no duty of care owed to the appellant. The appellant's claim was neither novel nor exceptional. The issue of the duty of care has been determined by this court on a number of occasions including in Norris v. Gatlien (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 441 (C.A.) and Wellington v. Ontario, 2011 ONCA 274, 105 O.R. (3d) 81. The appellant's efforts to distinguish the facts of this case from the facts in those two cases do not succeed.

[7] In light of our conclusion on the duty of care issue, it is not necessary to address the limitations issue.

Conclusion

[8] The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents fixed in the amount of $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

"K. Feldman J.A." "S.E. Pepall J.A." "I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A."