2022 ONSC 4373

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00624711

MOTION HEARD: 20220705

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Francis Aboagye, Plaintiff

AND:

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, Defendant

BEFORE: Associate Justice L. La Horey

COUNSEL: Francis Aboagye, Moving Party Plaintiff in Person

Rachel L. Jadd, Counsel for the Responding Party, Port Hope Police Services Board

Jennifer Bruce, Counsel for the Defendant, The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, observing

HEARD: July 5, 2022 by videoconference

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The plaintiff brings this motion seeking leave to add Port Hope Police Services Board (“Port Hope Police”) as a defendant in this action and to amend his statement of claim in the form attached as exhibit 2 to his affidavit sworn May 9, 2022.

[2] The plaintiff also asks that the court issue an “ultimatum for Port Hope Police to produce the actual unredacted document to avoid further wasteful court process.”

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

[3] Justice Papageorgiou delivered a decision in this proceeding on December 14, 2020 (2020 ONSC 7794). In paragraph of 28 of that decision, she seized herself of any future motions in this matter. I understand that Justice Papageorgiou has since advised the parties that she is no longer seized as she is now sitting in family court.

[4] At the hearing, I asked if any party objected to my hearing the motion. No objection was raised.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Claim

[5] The statement of claim in this action was issued on July 31, 2019 (the “Claim”) against the defendant The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board (“Peel Police”). In the Claim, Mr. Aboagye seeks $15 million in damages from Peel Police for a number of alleged wrongs, including false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and for breaches of his sections 7, 9 and 11 Charter rights. He also asks for a public enquiry. In the Claim, he alleges that he has experienced years of being viciously profiled, followed, harassed and intimidated by several uniformed and non-uniformed security personnel hired by Peel Police after an alleged false arrest in 2006. Mr. Aboagye, who identifies himself as a Black Canadian, alleges that the Peel Police harass law-abiding citizens, such as himself, that they do not like due to “Blatant Racism” and “Personal Grudge”.

[6] Mr. Aboagye alleges that as a result of this wrongful conduct, he has lost several jobs and can no longer maintain employment. In particular, the plaintiff states that he was dismissed from his job with Atomic Energy of Canada (“AECL”) in the town of Port Hope. He claims that years of police brutality, racial profiling and harassment have isolated him from the rest of society and have taken a toll on his health, both mentally and physically.

[7] The Claim contains a number of references to Port Hope Police. He claims that an affidavit from Port Hope Police Chief Bryan Wood in August 2016 confirmed that “the criminal document” that was responsible for his job dismissals has been placed in police law enforcement systems (paragraphs 11 and 62). He also alleges that a Port Hope police officer informed the plaintiff that “his job dismissals had police involvement” (paragraph 60).

The Draft Amended Claim

[8] The plaintiff has filed a draft amended statement of claim (“ Draft Amended Claim”). It adds Port Hope Police as a defendant. It increases the amounts claimed from $15 million to $22 million (paragraphs 1(c)(d) and Relief Sought (a)). It adds a reference to breaches pursuant to s. 6 of the Charter (paragraphs 1(a)(d) and Damages paragraph (a)). The statement in paragraph 3 that the plaintiff has never been charged by the Peel Police for any crime any has been modified by striking out “Peel” before Police. Some of the paragraphs have been renumbered.

[9] The plaintiff has added eight new paragraphs (new paragraphs 10 – 17) which are briefly summarized below:

a. Port Hope Police is identified as the employer of Port Hope police officers for whom it is liable (paragraph 10);

b. The plaintiff filed a complaint against AECL alleging adverse differential treatment with Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) on November 16, 2012 under the Canadian Human Rights Act. (paragraph 11);

c. On September 27, 2013, the CHRC received an unredacted police report from Port Hope Police indicating that “Mr. Aboagye was under law enforcement by the police.” (paragraph 12);

d. The contents of the unredacted document prompted a decision by the CHRC on December 12, 2013, not to deal with the plaintiff’s human rights complaint. (paragraph 13);

e. A Port Hope police officer told the plaintiff that the police were involved with his job dismissal with AECL in 2012 (paragraph 14);

f. The plaintiff spent almost a decade trying to obtain the document (paragraph 15);

g. The plaintiff purports to quote statements made by Associate Justice Robinson in an oral hearing. (I note that the words attributed to Associate Justice Robinson are not found in his decision reported at 2020 ONSC 356. No transcript of the oral hearing was provided.) (paragraph 16); and,

h. On February 17, 2021, Justice Papageorgiou made an order that Port Hope Police produce the full unredacted police reports to the plaintiff, but “they mischievously sent a fake version of the report as unredacted report in defiance of judge’s order”, making a mockery of the Canadian judicial system (paragraph 17).

[10] Port Hope Police summarizes the claim against it in the Draft Amended Claim in paragraph 12 of its factum as follows:

12. … the entirety of the Plaintiff’s claim against the proposed Defendant appears to be that: 1) that the proposed Defendant provided the Canadian Human Rights Commission with an unredacted police report resulting in the Commission dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint; 2) that the police were “involved” in the Plaintiff’s job dismissal from Atomic Energy, seemingly due to the existence of a “criminal” document; and 3) that the proposed Defendant has refused to provide the Plaintiff with the supposed criminal document.

[11] At the hearing, Mr. Aboagye agreed that the above correctly summarizes his claim against Port Hope Police, with the clarification that the refusal of Port Hope Police to provide the document is an obstruction of justice.

Prior Proceedings

[12] Mr. Aboagye pleads that he filed a complaint with the CHRC on or about November 16, 2012, regarding his employment with AECL and that CHRC decided not to proceed with the complaint, pursuant to its letter dated December 12, 2013. It is not disputed that the complaint was filed and that it was dismissed by the CHRC.

[13] Mr. Aboagye also commenced proceedings in the Federal Court and in this Court related to his employment with AECL. The affidavit of Julia Ferreira submitted by Port Hope Police attaches decisions in these proceedings.

[14] On July 8, 2014, Justice Mosley dismissed Mr. Aboagye’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of the decision of the CHRC (Federal Court docket 14-T-33). In so doing, Justice Mosely stated that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application had any merit. Mr. Aboagye’s request for reconsideration was denied by Justice Mosley on September 2, 2014.

[15] Mr. Aboagye commenced a further application for judicial review in Federal Court (File T-294-15) in which he alleged that the CHRC breached a duty of fairness to him in failing to disclose a police report prior to rendering its decision. Justice Douglas Campbell dismissed the application delivering reasons and judgment on April 11, 2016 (2016 FC 400).

[16] In paragraph 14 of his reasons, Justice Campbell stated that the existence and the content of a police report and whether it was before the CHRC when it rendered its decision under review were the central issues in the application. At paragraph 26 Justice Campbell identifies this report as the unredacted September 13, 2012 General Occurrence Report provided to Mr. Aboagye in redacted form by Port Hope Police on January 20, 2013.

[17] Justice Campbell determined that the unredacted version of the report was sent by Mr. Grandy, Port Hope Coordinator, Information and Privacy to the CHRC on September 27, 2013, after the Investigation Report was completed on September 5, 2013.

[18] At paragraph 33 of his reasons, Justice Campbell concluded:

On the evidence, I find that the un-redacted version of the September 13, 2012 General Occurrence Report was not before the Commission. As a result, I find that no duty of fairness owed to the Applicant was breached.

[19] On May 9, 2014, Mr. Aboagye commenced an action against AECL for wrongful dismissal. On December 30, 2016, Justice Fairburn (as she then was) granted summary judgment in favour of AECL dismissing the action (2020 ONSC 8165). Mr. Aboagye’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (2017 ONCA 598).

[20] Justice Fairburn found that Mr. Aboagye’s dishonesty in the hiring process was just cause for his termination. In the course of her decision Justice Fairburn dealt with allegations made by Mr. Aboagye in respect of the police. She stated the following:

21 In an investigative summary dated November 23, 2012, numerous harassment-related allegations are chronicled. The investigator summaries the complaints as having a "general theme of misogynistic statements and intimidating conduct". Mr. Aboagye's position is that he was the victim of a conspiracy to have him fired from AECL because of his racial background. The Port Hope O.P.P. are said to be part of the conspiracy.

28 During his discovery, Mr. Aboagye claimed that an officer in the Port Hope O.P.P. told him that the police were involved in getting him dismissed from AECL. Other than Mr. Aboagye's claim, there is no evidence of this fact. When asked why the police would want him fired from AECL, he said that AECL should ask the police that.

F. Police Reports

29 Despite the plaintiff's fixation with the police and their alleged interference with his employment, the police reports that have been obtained do not bear this out. An April 17, 2012 O.P.P. report suggests that the plaintiff went to a detachment and reported that he was being followed. He asked the officer to contact the Toronto Police Service to determine the reason he was being followed. The officer did not do so. Rather, as reflected in the report, the officer explained to the plaintiff that Hawkesbury is a small town and it is not uncommon to run into people on a few occasions without it being suspicious.

30 A September 13, 2012 police report suggests that an officer was called to the PHAI one day. The officer was informed that sometime previously, some people had been overheard commenting about "brown people". Mr. Aboagye told the officer that he thought that he was being followed. He also informed the officer that there had been a harassment complaint dealt with by the Hawkesbury O.P.P.

G. Position of Mr. Aboagye and His Credibility

32 The plaintiff says that the motion for summary judgment should be dismissed. He did not harass anyone. Quite to the contrary. He says that he has been harassed by AECL and the police. He is sure that someone was following him. It was likely the police. He says that his great fear of the police arises from having been stopped on the Don Valley Parkway in 2006. He alleges that the police pointed guns at him during this stop and it made him fearful for his life when he deals with the police. Mr. Aboagye says that this legitimate fear of the police, and what they may do to him if they learned he was leaving Hawkesbury, is the reason he did not disclose to AECL his work at Ivaco.

[Emphasis added]

[21] Justice Fairburn found that Mr. Aboagye misled AECL when he filled out his security questionnaire and lied to AECL about his employment status.

[22] Justice Fairburn concluded that:

57 Leaving aside all of the other issues explored by the employer in and around the time of the plaintiff's dismissal, the plaintiff engaged in a most serious form of dishonesty and, standing on its own, it was irreconcilable with sustaining his employment relationship with AECL. It is dishonesty that went to the core of the employment relationship and he was terminated with cause.

[23] The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Aboagye’s appeal of this decision (2017 ONCA 598) stating in part:

5 The motion judge's reasons are detailed, thorough and properly set out the legal principles with respect to termination for cause. We agree with her that the breach of honesty in this case goes to the core of the employment relationship. The respondent's employees have access to nuclear facilities and information vital to the security of the country. The security clearances are designed to protect national security. On this basis alone, there were clear grounds for dismissal and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Production Motion in this Action

[24] The plaintiff brought a motion requesting production from Peel Police and a non-party, CHRC, which was heard by Master T. Robinson (as his title then was). His decision on the motion was released on January 17, 2020 (2020 ONSC 356). An appeal of this decision was allowed in part by Justice Papageorgiou on December 14, 2020 (2020 ONSC 7794). Justice Papageorgiou ordered that CHRC produce any documents relevant to the Claim within 30 days and set aside that part of Master Robinson’s order that the plaintiff could move for production from Port Hope Police and Hawkesbury OPP only after Peel Police’s Rule 21 motion. Port Hope Police was not a party to this motion.

[25] Justice Papageorgiou made an order dated February 10, 2021, on consent of the non-party Port Hope Police, that it produce a “a complete unredacted copy of the incident report PH12003473 by March 1, 2021”. In these reasons I will refer the order requiring Port Hope to produce an unredacted copy of PH12003473 as the “Production Order”.

[26] In the same order, Justice Papageorgiou ordered that the non-party Hawkesbury OPP produce “a complete unredacted copy of the incident report RM12039235 ” by March 1, 2021.

MATERIALS FILED ON THE MOTION

[27] Mr. Aboagye filed his affidavit sworn May 9, 2022. He was not cross-examined on his affidavit.

[28] The plaintiff also submitted a copy of an affidavit from Chief Bryan Wood of the Port Hope Police sworn August 19, 2016, filed in the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal action against AECL. He also filed the decisions on the production motion referred to above, and his reply in the action.

[29] Port Hope Police filed a responding record containing the affidavit of Chief Bryan Wood sworn June 28, 2022, and the affidavit of Julia N. Ferreira, a lawyer, sworn June 27, 2022.

[30] At the hearing I asked Mr. Aboagye if he was seeking an adjournment to respond to the materials filed by Port Hope Police, by way of cross-examination or reply. Mr. Aboagye said that he did not require an adjournment and that he did not need to cross-examine Chief Wood as he believes that Chief Wood’s affidavit of June 28, 2022 contradicts his previously sworn 2016 affidavit.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[31] The plaintiff submits that his amendments ought to be allowed and that Port Hope Police should have to come to court to respond to his claim against them.

[32] Port Hope Police opposes the motion to amend the claim for three reasons: 1) the plaintiff’s action against it is an abuse of process; 2) the proposed pleading does not disclose a cause of action against it; and, 3) the plaintiff did not commence the action against Port Hope Police within the applicable limitation period.

[33] The plaintiff takes the position that Port Hope Police has not complied with the Production Order.

[34] Port Hope Police submits that it has complied with the Production Order.

[35] Counsel for Peel Police attended only to observe the motion and did not make submissions. Peel Police does not oppose the amendments.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

[36] Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

26.01 On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.

[37] The test for amending a pleading is well-known. A court must allow the amendment, unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, the proposed pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or the proposed pleading fails to disclose a cause of action. The expiry of a limitation period is one form of non-compensable prejudice. On a Rule 26 motion it is necessary to read the original statement of claim generously and with some allowance for drafting deficiencies.[^1]

[38] Rule 5.04(2) provides:

(2) At any stage of a proceeding the court may by order add, delete or substitute a party or correct the name of a party incorrectly named, on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.

[39] On a motion to add a party, the proposed amendment must meet all of the tests under Rule 26.01. The court retains a discretion to refuse the addition of a party even if the tests for amending a pleading are otherwise met.[^2]

[40] The addition of a party will not be permitted if it is shown to be an abuse of process.[^3]

Whether Port Hope Police has Produced the Unredacted Port Hope Police Occurrence Report

[41] Mr. Aboagye asks the “court to issue ultimatum for Port Hope Police to produce the actual unredacted document to avoid further wasteful court process.” I assume that the plaintiff is asking for an order that Port Hope Police comply with the Production Order.

[42] Mr. Aboagye’s affidavit deals in part with an unredacted report from Port Hope Police which he says interfered with his complaint to CHRC. In his affidavit, he claims that Port Hope Police did not comply with the order of Justice Papageorgiou. He alleges that on March 1, 2021, Port Hope Police sent him a “false report claiming it as unredacted”. Mr. Aboagye’s affidavit attaches his correspondence with Port Hope Police on the subject.

[43] In his affidavit of June 28, 2022, Chief Wood deposed that:

a. Police Constable R. Pitcher entered General Occurrence Report PH12003473 into the NICHE records management system on September 13, 2012 at approximately 7:48 p.m. The report details a call received by Port Hope Police in which the plaintiff was involved.

b. On October 21, 2012, at approximately 1:25 p.m., PC Pitcher entered Supplementary Occurrence Report PH12003473 which outlines unsuccessful attempts to contact the plaintiff.

c. On November 4, 2012, at approximately 10:48 p.m. PC Pitcher entered a second Supplementary Report in relation to Occurrence Report PH12003473 which details his follow up with the plaintiff.

d. On March 1, 2021, Mr. Grandy of Port Hope Police provided Mr. Aboagye a complete unredacted copy of Occurrence Report PH12003473 in compliance with the Production Order. A copy of the report provided to the plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 9 to Mr. Aboagye’s May 9, 2022 affidavit.

[44] As noted above, Chief Wood was not cross-examined and his evidence is therefore unchallenged.

[45] Ms. Ferreira’s affidavit states that Mr. Aboagye was provided with an unredacted copy of General Occurrence Report PH12003473. A copy of it is attached as Exhibit 10 to the plaintiff’s affidavit. In oral argument Mr. Aboagye did not dispute that he received this document that shows a print date of June 9, 2016. The document is not redacted.

[46] The September 13, 2013 General Occurrence Report, PH12003473 authored by PC Pitcher states that Mr. Aboagye reported threats and expressed concern about being followed in Port Hope. It states that Mr. Aboagye explained to PC Pitcher that Hawkesbury OPP had investigated Mr. Aboagye’s complaint of harassment at his previous place of employment. The report then goes on to state that PC Pitcher searched the NICHE system for the OPP incidents and found a report from Hawkesbury OPP, RM12039325.[^4] It states that the Hawkesbury OPP report “describes how Mr. Aboagye reported being possibly followed by vehicles”. The details in Hawkesbury OPP report were different than how PC Pitcher had understood the incident from Mr. Aboagye. The report states that the police plan to speak to Mr. Aboagye to clarify things and continue to investigate.

[47] At paragraph 6 of his affidavit, Mr. Aboagye says that the unredacted police reports shows that he is “under law enforcement by the police”. However, there is no suggestion in Port Hope General Occurrence Report PH12003473 that Mr. Aboagye is being investigated for criminal activity or is subject to criminal charges. Rather, it is the plaintiff who has reported threats and harassment against him. The reference to “law enforcement” in the affidavit of Milena Gonzalez, a paralegal with CHRC sworn in the Federal Court matter (attached as Exhibit 4 to Mr. Aboagye’s affidavit), appears to be in connection with a claim by Port Hope Police that the unredacted version of the report was being disclosed to CHRC as it was a law enforcement agency for the purpose of sharing confidential documents.

[48] Mr. Aboagye denies that the documents provided to him on March 1, 2021 comply with the Production Order. In his March 2, 2021 letter to Port Hope Police he claimed that the documents sent to him did not “contain the Hawkesbury OPP information sent to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.” He alleges that Peel Police are participating in a cover-up and refers to “a criminal act by a Police Officer”.

[49] Mr. Aboagye states that Chief Wood’s affidavit sworn August 19, 2016 in the AECL action contradicts his June 28, 2022 affidavit.

[50] In the August 19, 2016 affidavit, Chief Wood deposes that:

a. Municipal police services and the OPP share a records management system called NICHE which allows the member police agencies to input information regarding policing activities.

b. PC Pitcher entered General Occurrence Report PH12003473 into NICHE on September 13, 2012 at 19:48 regarding a call received by the Port Hope Police in which the plaintiff was involved.

c. PC Pitcher entered Mr. Aboagye’s name into the NICHE search function and found General Occurrence Report RM12039235 of the Hawkesbury OPP detachment which PC Pitcher was able to view and use to supplement his report. However, PC Pitcher made a typographical error in his report when he incorrectly referred to it as RM12039325.

d. At no time did PC Pitcher or any other Port Hope Police officer obtain a physical copy of General Occurrence Report RM12039235 or change, supplement or delete information contained within that report.

e. The distribution of another police agency’s documents or information is prohibited and accordingly, Port Hope Police cannot obtain and produce a copy of Hawkesbury General Occurrence Report RM12039235 and anyone wishing a copy would have request the document from Hawkesbury OPP.

[51] I do not agree with Mr. Aboagye that there is any contradiction in Chief Woods’ two affidavits.

[52] Mr. Aboagye says that Chief Wood is denying him access to the unredacted report and is lying to the court in his June 28, 2022 affidavit.

[53] As I understand his argument, Mr. Aboagye says that because Port Hope Police did not produce the Hawkesbury report referred to in the Port Hope Police report, Port Hope Police is not providing the “unredacted report”. I do not agree. Port Hope Police created the unredacted report which refers to report RM12039235 prepared by Hawkesbury OPP that PC Pritchard accessed and reviewed on the NICHE system.

[54] The Production Order does not require Port Hope Police to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the Hawkesbury OPP report RM12039235. Rather, as noted above, Justice Papageorgiou’s February 10, 2021 order requires Hawkesbury OPP to produce the unredacted incident report RM12039235.

[55] In his submissions, Mr. Aboagye referred to paragraph 20 of Associate Justice Robinson’s decision where he says that Port Hope Police had refused production of the unredacted Port Hope General Occurrence Report. This is consistent with the evidence before me that Port Hope Police had initially refused to allow the unredacted report to be produced to the plaintiff. Associate Justice Robinson also refers to a letter from Port Hope Police counsel dated November 13, 2019, which cites the prior positions taken by Port Hope Police as the reason for not consenting to production of the unredacted report. Mr. Aboagye submits that this is not consistent with his having received the unredacted report in 2016. The November 13, 2019 letter is not before me and I cannot comment on a document that is not before me. However, as noted above, Mr. Aboagye did not dispute receiving Exhibit 10 which is an unredacted copy of the report. I note that Port Hope Police was not a party to the production motion. In any event, even if the plaintiff did not receive the unredacted report in 2016, he received it on March 1, 2022.

[56] Even if I could issue an “ultimatum for Port Hope Police to produce the actual unredacted document to avoid further wasteful court process” as requested by the plaintiff (which I cannot), I would not do so. Based on my review of the evidence before me, I find that Port Hope Police has complied with the Production Order.

Whether the proposed claim against Port Hope Police is an Abuse of Process

[57] Port Hope Police submits that the court should refuse to add it as party as the proposed claim against it would be an abuse of process.

[58] The Supreme Court of Canada explained the doctrine of abuse of process in Toronto (City) v Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.), Local 79.[^5] This doctrine engages the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It has been applied to “preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirement of issue estoppel… are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.”[^6]

[59] The plaintiff’s pleading in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Draft Amended Claim, that the CHRC received an unredacted police report from Port Hope Police that prompted the CHRC not to deal with the plaintiff’s human rights complaint, is inconsistent with the findings of Justice Campbell. Specifically this pleading is inconsistent with Justice Campbell’s finding that the unredacted version of the September 13, 2012 General Occurrence Report was not sent to the CHRC until after the Investigation Report was completed on September 5, 2013 and his finding that this document “was not before the Commission”.

[60] In paragraph 14 of the Draft Amended Claim, the plaintiff alleges that PC Pritchard of the Port Hope Police confirmed that the “Police were involved with his job dismissal” at AECL at 2012. If the plaintiff means by this that the Port Hope Police were responsible or contributed to the plaintiff’s dismissal and their involvement was wrongful, this pleading is inconsistent with the decision of Justice Fairburn, affirmed on appeal, that the plaintiff was terminated for cause by AECL as a result of his dishonesty.

[61] In paragraph 17 of the Draft Amended Claim the plaintiff claims that Port Hope Police sent a “fake version of the report as an unredacted report in defiance of judge’s order.” Even if this were true, which I find that it is not, a civil action is not the proper remedy for breach of a court order. Further, I have found that Port Hope Police has complied with the Production Order and accordingly this claim is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.

[62] Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion to add Port Hope Police as a party defendant is refused as the claim against it is an abuse of process.

Other Arguments Advanced by Port Hope Police

[63] Given my conclusions on abuse of process, I do not need to address the other grounds advanced by Port Hope Police as to why it should not be added as a party, namely that the proposed pleading does not disclose a cause of action against it and the plaintiff did not commence the action against Port Hope Police within the applicable limitation period.

DISPOSITION

[64] The plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his claim to add Port Hope Police as a party defendant and to amend the claim to plead against Port Hope Police is dismissed. The proposed amendments in the heading above paragraph 9 and paragraphs 10 to 17 of the Draft Amended Claim are refused.

[65] As Peel Police does not oppose the increase in the quantum claimed or the addition of the reference to s. 6 of the Charter leave to make these amendments is granted. Specifically, the plaintiff is given leave to amend the claim to increase the quantum of damages sought as set out in paragraphs 1(c)(d) and Relief Sought (a) in the Draft Amended Claim. The plaintiff is given leave to amend the statement to claim to add the references to s. 6 of the Charter in paragraphs 1(a)(d) and Damages paragraph (a). The proposed amendment in paragraph 3 striking out “Peel” before Police is also allowed.

[66] The plaintiff shall prepare a revised amended statement of claim in accordance with these reasons which shall be attached to the order as Schedule A.

[67] If there is any issue with the form of order or revised amended statement of claim, the parties may contact my assistant trial co-ordinator to arrange a case conference.

COSTS

[68] The parties are encouraged to confer and agree on a costs disposition in respect of this motion. If the parties cannot agree, and if any party seeks costs of this motion, they may serve and file costs submissions of no more than three pages (double spaced, 12 point font) by August 16, 2022 together with a cost outline. Any responding submissions limited to three pages must be served and filed by August 30, 2022. Reply submissions of one page may be served and filed by September 7, 2022. All submissions shall also be uploaded to CaseLines.

L. La Horey, A.J.

Date: July 26, 2022

[^1]: Klassen v Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407 at paras 24 – 33

[^2]: Plante v Industrial Life Insurance Co., 2003 64295 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No. 3034 (Master) at paras 25, 27

[^3]: Plante, at para 27

[^4]: As set out below there is a typographical error in the Hawkesbury OPP report number, the correct number is RM12039235.

[^5]: 2003 SCC 63

[^6]: Ibid at para 37