Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2024-05-03 Docket: COA-23-CV-1120
Judges: Zarnett, Coroza and Favreau JJ.A.
Parties
BETWEEN
Banti Yadeta Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Service Board, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Ontario, Maplehurst Correctional Complex, John Doe, John Doe, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, ABC Company, ABC Company Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel
Banti Yadeta, acting in person Grant Ferguson, for the respondent The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Service Board Michael Saad, for the respondents His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Ontario and Maplehurst Correctional Complex
Heard: April 25, 2024
On appeal from the order of Regional Senior Justice Leonard Ricchetti of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 20, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The appellant was charged criminally with various offences, including receiving a material benefit from sexual services provided by a minor and making or publishing child pornography.
[2] At the time of the alleged offences, the complainant was underage and working as a sex worker. The police arrested the complainant while she was with another man at a hotel. In her statements to the police, she identified the appellant as her pimp.
[3] After his arrest, the appellant was detained at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex until bail was granted, and again for approximately two months while he had no surety. At the criminal trial, the complainant struggled to give her evidence during cross-examination. Following a break in the hearing, the proceedings were resolved on the basis that the appellant entered into a peace bond and forfeited nude photographs of the complainant, and the Crown withdrew the charges.
[4] The appellant subsequently brought a civil claim against various parties, including the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board (the “Peel Police”), the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, His Majesty the King [1] and the Attorney General of Ontario (these last three defendants are collectively referred to as the “Crown”). The appellant alleges that the charges and prosecution against him were brought maliciously, in bad faith and negligently. He also claims that he was assaulted by another inmate while he was detained at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
[5] The appeal arises from two motions heard at the same time by the motion judge.
[6] First, the appellant brought a motion under s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17, for permission to pursue a claim for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and bad faith against the Crown. Second, the Peel Police and the Crown brought a motion pursuant to r. 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 to strike the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s motion for leave under s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and granted the respondents’ motion to strike the claim.
[7] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant leave under s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and in dismissing his claim. He essentially argues that the complainant wrongfully identified him as her pimp, and that he should never have been arrested and prosecuted. He also takes issue with how the motions were scheduled and with various aspects of the motion judge’s decision.
[8] We see no error in the motion judge’s decision. He provided a comprehensive and well reasoned analysis in support of his conclusions.
[9] In his reasons, the motion judge correctly canvassed the statutory requirements to grant leave under s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and explained how the appellant’s claims and materials failed to meet these requirements. We agree with the motion judge’s finding that, even on a generous reading of the appellant’s claim and materials, there is no reasonable possibility that he could succeed in his claims for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and other claims that the Crown acted in bad faith. The motion judge aptly noted that the appellant failed to provide any material facts or evidence that support these claims, and that it is not sufficient for him to state that he will provide material facts after discoveries. As also found by the motion judge, the appellant has not pointed to any unlawful act in the prosecution of the criminal case against him that would support a claim for misfeasance in public office. Further, as noted by the motion judge, the criminal proceedings were not resolved in the appellant’s favour as required for a claim of malicious prosecution; rather, the appellant voluntarily entered into a peace bond and forfeited the nude images of the complainant in exchange for the withdrawal of the charges against him.
[10] The motion judge’s conclusion that the claim does not disclose a cause of action is also well supported and consistent with the applicable legal principles. For example, we agree with the motion judge that the appellant has not pleaded any material facts in support of his claim against the Peel Police, nor does his claim support a finding that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him given that he has pleaded that the complainant identified him as her pimp. We also agree with the motion judge that the appellant has failed to plead material facts that would support a finding that the assault that allegedly occurred while he was detained at Maplehurst was due to the negligence of any Crown employees.
[11] Finally, we see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary decision that leave to amend the claim should not be granted. The appellant has had several opportunities to amend his claim and provide further material facts in support of his allegations. There is no basis for anticipating that further amendments could cure the fatal defects in the claim.
[12] While the appellant clearly feels that he should not have been arrested, charged and prosecuted, his pleading does not assert a legally tenable claim against the Peel Police or the Crown.
[13] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[14] The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal. The Crown and the Peel Police are each awarded $5,000 in costs, for a total of $10,000. This amount is inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.
“B. Zarnett J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.” “L. Favreau J.A.”
[1] In his statement of claim, the appellant named Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. But the Crown is now properly identified as His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.