The plaintiff sued police officers and a police services board alleging negligent investigation, bad faith, and Charter breaches after he was charged with sexual assault and related offences but later acquitted at trial.
He alleged the police relied on an unreliable complainant, fabricated evidence, failed to pursue exculpatory witnesses, and caused reputational harm through media reporting.
Applying the framework from Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, the court held that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge based on the complainant’s statement, observed injuries, and corroborative circumstances.
The investigation, although imperfect, fell within the bounds of reasonable police discretion.
The court found no evidence of fabrication, bad faith, or Charter violations and dismissed the claim.
