Court File and Parties

Citation: T.G. v. Dicks, 2015 ONSC 7447 Court File No.: CV-14-509763 Date: 2015-12-01

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Between:

T.G. and M.T. Plaintiffs

-and-

DAVID DICKS who was the Superintendent of 41 Division, POLICE OFFICER SERGEANT DAVID ROBINSON from 41 Divisions, DECTECTIVE CONSTABLE DOUGLAS WARD from 41 Divisions, POLICE OFFICER DANIEL ROGERS PC11 BUDGE #90260, Division 43, POLICE OFFICER SUMAISAR, TOM PC13 BUDGE #99447 Division 43, ALVAREZ, JORGE PC12 BUDGE #5406 Division 43, PARKER, DYANNE PC31 BUDGE #10824 Division 43, TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD Defendants

Before: F.L. Myers J. Read: November 28, 2015

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of counsel for the defendants under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs claim $10 million for assault and battery. They allege that the police defendants threatened them and drugged one of them to stop them from continuing a complaint for sexual abuse against an elementary school principal. The plaintiffs allege that the police destroyed evidence and covered up the crime.

[3] While the story told by the plaintiffs may seem outrageous at first blush, that does not make it untrue, frivolous, or vexatious. I see no reason why motions under rules 20 or 21 cannot be brought in the ordinary course. There is no indication on the face of the statement of claim that allowing the normal motion process to proceed involves a risk of abuse. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at paras. 8 and 9.

[4] I therefore decline to direct the registrar to issue notice under Rule 2.1 at this time. Any judge who hears this matter remains free to refer it to the registrar under Rule 2.1 if he or she sees fit to do so in the ordinary course.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: December 1, 2015