COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-342652PD3
DATE: 20120417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KENNETH QUARTEY
Plaintiff
– and –
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, CONSTABLE LYALL, CONSTABLE SEAN OSBORNE, P.C. SAAREMETS, CADET PHILLIP DANEK
Defendants
Kenneth Quartey, in person as self-represented
Gordon Marsden, for the Defendants
HEARD: March 28, 2012
B. P. O’Marra J.
reasons for decision
the issue
[1] Based on the disputed facts between the parties is this an appropriate case for summary judgment in favour of the Defendants?
the facts
[2] On April 26 and 27, 2007 Officers Lyall, Osborne, Saaremets and Danek were members of Peel Regional Police.
[3] Shortly after 10 p.m. on April 26, 2007 Officer Saaremets was dispatched to a residence in Brampton based on a telephone report by a citizen that a tenant was “banging on the walls and crazy”.
[4] Officer Saaremets went to the residence along with Officers Danek and Woodrow and arrived at 10:07 p.m.
[5] The Officers were advised by a citizen at the scene that Kenneth Quartey was a tenant and that he had been banging on the walls and acting strange.
[6] The Officers met with Quartey in his room. He was courteous and agreed he would be calm and not bang on the walls. Quartey told the Peel Officers that the Ontario Provincial Police were “out to get him”.
[7] The citizen who had reported the conduct of Quartey said she was frightened of him and agreed to report any violent behaviour.
[8] The Officer left the residence at 11:01 p.m.
[9] At approximately 12:53 a.m. on April 27, 2007 Officer Saaremets received the following information from the police dispatcher:
− Quartey asked the Peel Police to return to his residence.
− Quartey claimed the O.P.P. were “spying on him and using infrared lasers to burn his face”.
− Quartey claimed the O.P.P. were “in cahoots” with his landlord.
[10] At approximately 1:12 a.m. Officers Saaremets, Danek, Lyall and Osborne went to the residence. Quartey met the Officers in the front foyer and thanked them for coming. He asked the Officers to come upstairs as the O.P.P. have planted devices in the house and put a new infrared laser in the ceiling that burns his face. Quartey removed his shirt and indicated areas of his torso and face where he believed he had sustained burns from the infrared devices.
[11] The contemporaneous notes of Officer Saaremets indicate he did not see any burn marks on Quartey’s body.
[12] Quartey told the Peel Police that the Strategic Services Bureau of the O.P.P. had been monitoring him for ten years.
[13] Based on the information he had received and observations he had made Officer Saaremets formed the following belief and grounds in regard to Quartey:
Quartey had acted in a disorderly fashion (banging on the walls for some three weeks).
Quartey showed a lack of competence to care for himself based on his complaints of surveillance and burns inflicted by the O.P.P.
Quartey suffered from a mental disorder of a nature likely to result in serious bodily harm to himself or others living in or near his rented premises.
[14] Officer Saaremets believed it would be dangerous in the circumstances to wait to bring an Information before a Justice of the Peace for an order that Quartey attend an examination by a physician.
[15] Officer Saaremets informed Quartey that he was being brought in custody to Peel Memorial Hospital for examination by a physician pursuant to Section 17 of the Mental health Act of Ontario.
[16] Quartey was handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser for transport to the hospital. They arrived there at 1:25 p.m.
[17] At approximately 1:32 a.m. Quartey was given a preliminary examination by a crisis worker who recorded the following:
− (Patient) is psychotic, believing infrared cameras placed in his home and burning his skin.
− (Patient) also believes O.P.P. conspiracy against him.
− (Patient) requires admission.
[18] Quartey was kept in a quiet room until a physician could examine him.
[19] Dr. J. Handler arrived and was advised by the Officers of their grounds for bringing Quartey in for a medical assessment.
[20] Dr. Handler then conducted an examination of Quartey in the quiet room without any of the Officers present.
[21] Dr. Handler then completed a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act authorizing the apprehension and detention of Quartey in a psychiatric facility for a maximum period of 72 hours. Dr. Handler indicated he had reasonable cause to believe the following in regard to Quartey:
he has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person;
he has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him; and
he has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself.
[22] Dr. Handler further indicated that he based his belief on the information he received and his own observations. He referred to Quartey’s paranoia and agitated behaviour.
[23] After Dr. Handler complete the Form 1 the officers transferred custody of Quartey to the secure facility within the hospital where he was held until April 30, 2007.
the law
[24] After delivering a Statement of Defence a defendant may move with supporting affidavit evidence for summary judgment on all or part of a plaintiff’s claim:
Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 20.01(3).
[25] The Court shall grant summary judgment if there is “no genuine issue requiring a trial” with respect to a claim.
Rule 20.04(2)(a).
[26] In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial the Court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties. The judge may exercise any of the following powers on such an application unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:
Weighing the evidence;
evaluating the credibility of a defendant; and
drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
Rule 20.04(2.1)
Section 17 and 18 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.7
- Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,
(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;
(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,
and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(d) serious bodily harm to the person;
(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or
(f) serious physical impairment of the person,
and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.
Place of psychiatric examination
- An examination under section 16 or 17 shall be conducted by a physician forthwith after receipt of the person at the place of examination and where practicable the place shall be a psychiatric facility or other health facility.
[27] Everyone who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law as a peace officer is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Criminal Code of Canada, s. 25(1)
[28] For reasonable and probable grounds the police officer must subjectively believe that he has such grounds and those grounds must also be justifiable from an objective point of view.
Storrey v. R., 1990 125 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241 at para. 17.
[29] The Plaintiff asserts the following in response to this application:
− The O.P.P. collaborated with Peel Regional Police and the Plaintiff’s landlords since 1998 to stop him from seeking justice or try to have him arrested.
− In regard to the events of April 26 and 27, 2007:
a) denies being disorderly or threatening to anyone, nor a danger to himself;
b) claims his efforts are constantly thwarted by the O.P.P. removing evidence and materials from his room;
c) in addition to hidden infrared cameras that he mentioned to Peel Police he further claims that O.P.P. installed transmitters which are used to modify his face by putting dents, blackening, softening and lines thereon;
d) confirms that after initial attendance by Peel Police he called them to make a complaint regarding “the brutal assault by radiation” while he slept;
e) claims Peel Police had no basis to arrest him; and
f) denies he has any psychiatric problems.
Position of the parties
[30] The Defendants seek a summary judgment in their favour based on there being no genuine issue requiring a trial. The Plaintiff opposes the motion primarily on the basis of disputed facts that require a trial.
analysis
[31] This claim is based on allegations of the following:
− assault;
− wrongful and unlawful arrest and detention;
− obstruction of justice;
− negligence and dereliction of duty; and
− breach of public trust
[32] The Plaintiff was not arrested for an alleged breach of a federal or provincial statute. He was taken into custody by police officers pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Mental Health Act. Based on what the Peel Officers heard and saw on April 27 and 28, 2007 there were clearly reasonable and probable grounds and a basis for the opinion that the Plaintiff should be taken in custody for an examination by a physician at a nearby hospital.
[33] The Plaintiff was examined by a crisis worker and a physician very shortly after arrival at the hospital. The crisis worker noted that he appeared to be psychotic and paranoid. The doctor met with the Plaintiff alone and then signed a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act authorizing the apprehension and detention in a psychiatric facility for a maximum of 72 hours. The doctor’s observations and conclusions mirror the concerns of the Peel Police who apprehended the Plaintiff.
[34] Mr. Quartey was articulate in his oral submissions in this Court. He maintains that he was unlawfully assaulted and detained. Further, he continues in the firm belief that the O.P.P. have conspired and caused bodily and emotional damage to him. He appears to have a fixed and sincere belief that he has been the victim of a wide spread conspiracy to harm him and prevent him from seeking justice. There does not appear to be any plausible evidence that such a conspiracy in fact exists.
[35] The conduct of the police and medical staff who dealt with Mr. Quartey on April 27 and 28, 2007 was lawful and reasonable. They acted under statutory authority and the disputed facts do not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.
result
[36] Application allowed. Action dismissed.
costs
[37] Counsel for the Applicant seeks costs of $2,500 but advises they will not seek enforcement unless further action is taken on the claim. Costs ordered $2,500 all inclusive.
B. P. O’Marra J.
Released: April 17, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-342652PD3
DATE: 20120417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KENNETH QUARTEY
Plaintiff
– and –
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, CONSTABLE LYALL, CONSTABLE SEAN OSBORNE, P.C. SAAREMETS, CADET PHILLIP DANEK
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
B. P. O’Marra J.
Released: April 17, 2012