Robin Squires

The plaintiff, an identical twin, was arrested and charged with armed robbery after his brother committed the offence.

The plaintiff sued the arresting officers and the police services board for Charter violations, false arrest, excessive force, and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed most claims, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff given his identical appearance to the suspect and the dynamic circumstances.

However, the court found the police were negligent in their investigation by failing to properly investigate, account for, and document a stolen ring seized from the plaintiff's brother at booking.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 in general damages for the stress and stigma of remaining under the robbery charges longer than necessary.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to stay their Ontario action against their insurer in favour of an arbitration in India.

The underlying dispute involved machinery damaged during transit.

The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the limitation period had expired and no arbitration had actually been commenced in India.

The Master was found to have applied the correct principles in refusing the stay.

The plaintiffs, who are suing for wrongful arrest based on mistaken identity, brought a motion to compel the defendant Toronto Police Services Board to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents and comply with previous production orders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' Affidavit of Documents failed to properly list and describe the documents for which privilege was claimed.

The court ordered the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit within 30 days, after which compliance with the production orders could be assessed.

The defendants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c).

The underlying action involved complex allegations of mortgage fraud against multiple defendants.

The Master had found the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay inadequate but concluded that the presumption of prejudice was partially rebutted and that the balance of factors favoured allowing the action to proceed.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's holistic consideration of the relevant factors and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a civil action alleging unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution, and negligent investigation arising from fraud charges.

The plaintiff argued there remained genuine issues for trial, including errors in the officer’s reliance on identification evidence and the timing of a Ministry of Transportation photograph.

The court noted that the Court of Appeal had ordered a new criminal trial after reviewing surveillance video and finding a reasonable possibility of misidentification.

The motion judge held that the evidentiary record, including the significance of the video evidence, prevented a fair and just determination on summary judgment.

The defendants failed to establish that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants, Winston Gauntlett Mattis and Fiona Ann Docherty, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action, commenced in 2006, involved allegations of mortgage fraud and solicitor negligence.

The court found that while there was inexcusable delay by the plaintiffs, the presumption of prejudice was partially rebutted regarding documentary evidence.

The motion was dismissed for the plaintiffs represented by counsel, who had recently taken steps to move the action forward, but granted for the unrepresented plaintiffs who failed to respond to the motion.