Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-407254 DATE: 20230905

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

REZA BAHRAMZADEH Plaintiff – and – TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD and OFFICER AMANDA MASON Defendants

Counsel: Reza Bahramzadeh, self-represented David A. Gourlay and Philip Chan, for the Defendants

HEARD: September 19-23 and November 14, 2022, with written submissions delivered on January 16, February 17 and March 31, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

VERMETTE J.

[1] The Plaintiff, Reza Bahramzadeh, sues the Defendants in relation to his arrest on July 23, 2008 and a subsequent assault committed against him by a third party while he was on bail. Mr. Bahramzadeh alleges, among other things, that he suffered physical and psychological damage as a result of the police’s use of force during his arrest. He also alleges that his arrest was based on untrue and fabricated allegations.

[2] I find that Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence regarding the circumstances of his arrest is unreliable and inconsistent with objective sources of evidence and contemporaneous records. I also find that many of the arguments advanced by Mr. Bahramzadeh are an abuse of process because they seek to relitigate his criminal convictions. Further, Mr. Bahramzadeh does not have a cause of action as against the police for the assault that was committed against him by a third party.

[3] Accordingly, the action is dismissed.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The parties and the witnesses

[4] Mr. Bahramzadeh is a 65-year-old man. This case relates mainly to two events during which Mr. Bahramzadeh interacted with Toronto police officers. The first event took place on July 23, 2008 and the second event took place on January 30, 2009.

[5] The trial proceeded as a hybrid trial with the witnesses’ evidence-in-chief being adduced by affidavit.

[6] Mr. Bahramzadeh was the only witness who gave evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s case. He filed an affidavit for his evidence-in-chief, and he was cross-examined by counsel for the Defendants.

[7] The Defendants filed affidavits of the following police officers: [1]

a. Regarding the July 23, 2008 event: i. the individual Defendant, Police Constable (“PC”) Amanda Mason, now Amanda Brannigan; ii. PC Sheena Lammers, now Sheena Cannon; iii. PC Christopher Awad, now Christopher Atwood; iv. PC Nazaret Maadanian; v. PC Denis Azzopardi; vi. PC Andrew Campbell; vii. Detective Constable (“DC”) Dexter Choo-Wing; viii. DC Ryan Rayner; ix. DC Arland Stave; x. Detective George Kaldis; xi. Sergeant Anthony Paoletta; xii. DC Jason Gobeil; and xiii. DC Andrew Binning.

b. Regarding the January 30, 2009 event: i. PC Christopher Durst; ii. PC James MacIsaac; and iii. Sergeant Michael Hayles.

[8] Among the police officers listed above, the following officers were cross-examined by Mr. Bahramzadeh at trial: PC Brannigan, PC Cannon, PC Maadanian, PC Azzopardi, DC Choo-Wing, DC Stave, Detective Kaldis, Sergeant Paoletta, PC Durst and Sergeant Hayles.

[9] Sergeant Gordon Jones was also involved in the July 23, 2008 event. Sergeant Jones passed away in January 2010, before this action was commenced. At the beginning of the trial, I held that Sergeant Jones’ first-hand observations in his notebook were admissible for the truth of their contents pursuant to the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

2. July 23, 2008 event

a. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest – Police evidence

[10] On July 23, 2008, Mr. Bahramzadeh lived in an apartment building in Scarborough. He had lived there for many years. At that time, Mr. Bahramzadeh did not work and had not had a job since 2005. In 2005, he worked in temporary, short-term jobs. Mr. Bahramzadeh was on Ontario Works from 2005 to the date of his arrest.

[11] According to Mr. Bahramzadeh, he was out all day on July 23, 2008, and he came back to his apartment at around 9:30 p.m. He had some whisky when he came back.

[12] The following is a description of the events based on police records (including audio and video recordings and police officers’ notes) and the officers’ evidence at trial. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence is discussed below.

[13] At 9:47 p.m., Mr. Bahramzadeh’s neighbours called 911 to report that Mr. Barhramzadeh was threatening them with a knife and that he had previously urinated on their door. They also mentioned the fact that, in the past, Mr. Bahramzadeh had come out of his apartment naked.

[14] PC Brannigan and PC Cannon were dispatched to attend at Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment building at approximately 10:03 p.m. PC Atwood advised dispatch shortly thereafter that he and his escort, PC Maadanian, could also attend the call as back-up. At 10:06 p.m., PC Brannigan asked whether a sergeant was available to attend in case they required a taser. Sergeant Jones then confirmed that he would attend.

[15] A summary of the information given by the complainants during the 911 call was provided to the officers on the police dispatch radio.

[16] All five police officers (in three different cars) arrived at the apartment building between 10:10 and 10:13 p.m.

[17] The officers first went to the apartment of the complainants, i.e., Mr. Bahramzadeh’s neighbours. The complainants told the officers what had happened. They stated that they confronted Mr. Bahramzadeh about urinating on their door and then he threatened them with a knife. They also showed the officers a photo of Mr. Bahramzadeh holding a large kitchen knife in his hand while looking at the camera. Based on the information received from the complainants, the officers believed that they had grounds to arrest Mr. Bahramzadeh for threatening his neighbours with a knife.

[18] The officers advised the complainants to stay together in their apartment with the door closed. They then went to Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment.

[19] Sergeant Jones knocked on Mr. Bahramzadeh’s door several times, but there was no answer. At approximately 10:17 p.m., PC Cannon asked dispatch to contact the landlord, Toronto Community Housing, for help to open the door. Ultimately, due to the urgency of the situation, Sergeant Jones opened the door to the apartment himself. The door was not damaged in the process. Sergeant Jones went in first, followed by PC Cannon and PC Brannigan, and PC Atwood and PC Maadanian.

[20] The officers all deny that Mr. Bahramzadeh opened the door to them.

[21] The evidence of PC Brannigan and PC Cannon is that Sergeant Jones took the lead as they entered the apartment and in identifying them as police. The apartment was quiet and Mr. Bahramzadeh was kneeling on the floor many steps away from the door, near a mattress, facing away from the officers. Because they were concerned that Mr. Bahramzadeh may have a knife in his hands, the officers used verbal commands from a safe distance and Mr. Bahramzadeh complied with them.

[22] PC Brannigan states the following in her affidavit regarding Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest:

Our first goal was to see Mr. Bahramzadeh’s hands, to ensure he was not holding the knife. After we saw that he did not have the knife, Mr. Bahramzadeh was generally compliant with Sgt. Jones’ commands to get on the ground (i.e. the floor of the apartment) and we arrested him without incident. We guided Mr. Bahramzadeh to the ground, on his stomach, and my escort PC Cannon gained control of his hands, handcuffed him and placed him under arrest. I advised him of his rights to counsel.

[23] The arrest happened quickly as the officers advised dispatch that they had Mr. Bahramzadeh in custody less than two minutes after they asked that the landlord be contacted to open the door, which was before they entered Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment.

[24] PC Brannigan and PC Cannon transported Mr. Bahramzadeh to the police station at 41 Division. While they moved Mr. Bahramzadeh out of his apartment towards the elevator, he was verbally abusive and called them “white devil bitches”, among other things.

[25] PC Atwood and PC Maadanian were not the officers who arrested Mr. Bahramzadeh, but they were present in the apartment and they confirmed in their evidence that the arrest did not involve a struggle or require any physical force. PC Maadanian seized a knife on the kitchen counter that matched the description given by the complainants and that he had seen on the complainant’s camera. He also located Mr. Bahramzadeh’s keys and secured the apartment by locking the door. PC Maadanian then gave the keys to Sergeant Jones.

[26] At 10:23 p.m., Sergeant Jones used the police radio communication system to ask PC Brannigan and PC Cannon to meet him downstairs as he had Mr. Bahramzadeh’s identification and keys.

[27] After PC Brannigan, PC Cannnon and Sergeant Jones left the apartment building, PC Atwood and PC Maadanian stayed behind to speak to the complainants and take statements.

[28] At 10:24 p.m., PC Brannigan called dispatch to advise that they were going to the station and she reported the starting mileage. She reported the finishing mileage at 10:34 p.m., upon their arrival at the station. The officers drove directly from the apartment building to the station, covering about five kilometres in ten minutes.

[29] PC Brannigan describes Mr. Bahramzadeh’s behaviour in the car as follows:

During the time we were transporting him, Mr. Bahramzadeh was very active in the backseat of the car, moving around a lot, including hitting himself against the screen between the passenger seat and the front seats. He was also yelling at times during the trip. By the time we arrived at the station, his shirt had fallen down again, and we pulled his shirt back onto his shoulders before entering the booking hall. […] We did not buckle Mr. Bahramzadeh in the car, which was consistent with our practice. Buckling and unbuckling a prisoner in handcuffs can be dangerous, particularly when the prisoner is agitated.

[30] PC Cannon’s evidence on this point is almost identical.

[31] PC Brannigan’s evidence at trial was that she could not see Mr. Bahramzadeh in the back of the car as she was driving. However, she remembers that Mr. Bahramzadeh was verbal and active in the back of the car, he was pressing his face on the screen separating the front and the back of the car and screaming profanities to her and PC Cannon.

[32] All of the officers present at the apartment building say that Mr. Bahramzadeh did not complain of, or ask for medical help for, a nose injury or any other injury.

b. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest – Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence

[33] In his affidavit, Mr. Bahramzadeh states that his neighbour and his neighbour’s three brothers-in-law violently knocked on his door in the evening of July 23, 2008. After Mr. Bahramzadeh slightly opened the door, they started threatening him and pressing on the door to open it. Mr. Bahramzadeh was holding a kitchen knife in his hand because he was cutting a cucumber when there was a knock on the door. At some point, he raised his hand holding the knife as he was under attack. Mr. Bahramzadeh says that he never went into the hallway and he stayed in his apartment. After a verbal argument, his neighbour and his brothers-in-law went back to the neighbour’s home.

[34] Mr. Bahramzadeh describes his arrest as follows in his affidavit:

I was well aware that this neighbor of mine would call the police, and I knew the police were coming soon or late, for that reason I tried to prepare myself, dress properly and meet the police politely. I remember I ate some of the cucumber then I brushed my teeth to have a fresh breath, then when I started wearing my shirt, at that point I heard someone banging on my apartment door rapidly and they were saying loudly it is police open the door, once I open the door they asked turn around, I turned around they grabbed my hand, after I was handcuffed they started pushing my head against the door and wall, resulting in injuries to my nose and knee and I had very bad headache due that trauma. The officers were yelling on me by saying; “Were [sic] did you pee”? “Where did you pee?”. They did not give me any opportunity to give a statement and they did not allow me to wear my shoe. The arrest was unlawful. They put me in the rear of police car without putting seat belt on me. Failing to wear a seat belt is an offence under Highway Traffic Act. I am still suffering from that trauma. [Emphasis in the original.]

[35] According to Mr. Bahramzadeh, only two female officers came to his apartment and arrested him. There were no other officers.

[36] PC Brannigan and PC Cannon deny shouting “Where did you pee?” at Mr. Bahramzadeh. They also deny using force or pushing Mr. Bahramzadeh against a wall or into a door frame.

[37] Mr. Bahramzadeh alleged in his Statement of Claim that, after his arrest, police officers drove him out of the city. During his cross-examination at trial, he stated that he now knows that this is not the case, but he thought that it happened at the time. Mr. Bahramzadeh acknowledged talking loudly in the police car. He said that he thought that the two officers would kill him and he wanted the dispatcher to hear his voice.

[38] Mr. Bahramzadeh asserts that the evidence that his neighbours gave to the police was false and he denies doing what they said he did, including things that happened before July 23, 2008 (e.g., standing naked in his open doorway). He points out that his neighbours exaggerated the size of the knife that he was holding in his hands. He also generally complains about the evidence given by the police officers in their affidavits.

[39] Mr. Bahramzadeh states that a computer hard drive and a watch went missing from his apartment after his arrest on July 23, 2008.

c. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s time at the police station – Police evidence

i. First time in booking hall

[40] On July 23, 2018, Sergeant Jones was acting both as a “road” sergeant and as a booking sergeant. After leaving Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment, Sergeant Jones drove back to the station. At approximately 10:54 p.m., PC Brannigan and PC Cannon brought Mr. Bahramzadeh into the booking hall. There is a video of Mr. Bahramzadeh in the booking hall while he was paraded before Sergeant Jones.

[41] Approximately one minute after Mr. Bahramzadeh was brought into the booking hall, while Mr. Bahramzadeh was saying to the officers that “we are all human”, Sergeant Jones asked PC Brannigan and PC Cannon what had happened to Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose. He also asked Mr. Bahramzadeh whether he had smashed his nose against the screen in the car. PC Brannigan sated that Mr. Bahramzadeh was moving around and was pretty active. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not answer Sergeant Jones’ question and told Sergeant Jones that the considered him like his brother and asked him to find out who was guilty. Sergeant Jones then asked the officers to complete an injury report. He also asked Mr. Bahranzadeh if he was “in good health right now”. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not answer the question. Instead, he asked Sergeant Jones to find out who was evil and stated that he was innocent and that he was attacked by four people.

[42] PC Azzopardi and PC Campbell were in the booking hall when Mr. Bahramzadeh was paraded before Sergeant Jones. After it was determined that Mr. Bahramzadeh would receive a level three search, PC Azzopardi and PC Campbell brought Mr. Bahramzadeh to the appropriate area and performed the search. This took place shortly before 11 p.m. On the video showing Mr. Bahramzadeh walking with PC Campbell and PC Azzopardi, Mr. Bahramzadeh was wearing one slipper on one foot and had nothing on the other foot. After the search, PC Azzopardi and PC Campbell brought Mr. Bahramzadeh back to the booking hall. At that time, Mr. Bahramzadeh was barefoot. When PC Campbell came back to the booking hall, he indicated to Sergeant Jones that Mr. Bahramzadeh did not want his slipper and that he was going to put it with Mr. Bahramzadeh’s property. PC Campbell can then be seen putting the slipper in a plastic bag.

[43] Sergeant Jones then advised Mr. Bahramzadeh that he was going to go speak with the detectives upstairs, and PC Brannigan and PC Cannon took Mr. Bahramzadeh to the detectives’ office. Before leaving the booking hall, PC Brannigan is seen on the video asking for shoes for Mr. Bahramzadeh and it appears that PC Azzopardi gave her shoes as they were leaving the booking hall.

[44] An injury report was completed by PC Brannigan. It describes the injury as a “small cut to nose” and indicates that the injury was sustained after arrest. It also states the following:

Police arrested male after he garnished and threatened his neighbours with a knife. Male en-route to 41 Div. was moving around in the rear of the scout car and banged his nose off of the screen divider. A small abrasion was sustained as a result.

[45] The injury report was submitted by PC Brannigan and PC Cannon and reviewed by Sergeant Jones.

[46] PC Brannigan’s evidence is that at the time of Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest and before placing him in the rear of the police car, Mr. Bahramzadeh did not have any fresh blood on his nose. However, at the station, there was a small amount of fresh blood that appeared to be coming from an older cut on his nose. PC Brannigan expressed the view that “[t]he only explanation for the new blood was that the cut had opened up as a result of Mr. Bahramzadeh thrashing around in the back of the scout car and hitting himself against the screen.” She states that nothing that was done during the arrest at the apartment could conceivably had cut his nose or caused an old cut to re-open. PC Cannon’s evidence is to the same effect.

[47] Mr. Bahramzadeh was wearing a white shirt on July 23, 2008 and there is no apparent blood on his shirt on the videos and photos that were taken that evening. The photos of Mr. Bahramzadeh taken by the police show a small cut on the upper left side of his nose and some dried blood on the left side of his nose. The photos do not show blood from his nostril. It is noteworthy that Mr. Bahramzadeh would not have been able to wipe his nose while he was handcuffed.

[48] PC Brannigan’s and PC Cannon’s evidence is that Mr. Bahramzadeh did not ask for medical attention while he was with them and their notes contain the notation “medical refused” after the notation regarding the submission of the injury report. They both stated that Mr. Bahramzadeh’s right nostril, or any nostril, was not bleeding at any point when they were with him.

ii. Criminal Investigations Bureau and second time in booking hall

[49] Mr. Bahramzadeh was brought to the Criminal Investigations Bureau (“CIB”) shortly after 11 p.m. On July 23, 2008, the following officers worked in the CIB: Detective Kaldis, DC Choo-Wing, DC Stave and DC Rayner.

[50] The officers in the CIB received information from the arresting officers, PC Brannigan and PC Cannon, regarding the reasons for the arrest. In processing Mr. Bahramzadeh, they asked him a number of general questions (e.g., his date of birth,), but they did not conduct an interview seeking evidence. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not give a statement. The CIB officers prepared the supplementary records of arrest, including a synopsis of the allegations. [2]

[51] At approximately 11:20 p.m., DC Stave went to ask some questions of Mr. Bahramzadeh to prepare the case for bail court. DC Stave gave Mr. Bahramzadeh a verbal caution regarding any statements he might make. DC Stave’s memobook records the following exchange:

Q. How long have you lived there? A. Long time. More 15 years. Q. Do you know your neighbours? A. Yes. They live there long time. They made me mad. I peed. Q. Where did you pee? A. I don’t know. Q. Was it on your neighbours door? A. I was mad.

[52] DC Stave then exited the room and told Detective Kaldis about the conversation.

[53] Mr. Bahramzadeh denies telling DC Stave that he peed. [3]

[54] While Mr. Bahramzadeh was in the CIB, he did not ask the officers for medical attention or assistance. DC Choo-Wing offered to clean some blood from the cut on his nose, but Mr. Bahramzadeh refused.

[55] At approximately 12:55 a.m., DC Choo-Wing escorted Mr. Bahramzadeh to the booking hall to be paraded before he was lodged in the cells. On the booking hall video, we can hear Mr. Bahramzadeh telling DC Choo-Wing that four people knocked on his door and attacked him. Shortly thereafter, PC Azzopardi and PC Campbell entered the booking hall and PC Campbell told Mr. Bahramzadeh: “They didn’t even wipe the blood off your nose?” DC Choo-Wing then said that he had asked Mr. Bahramzadeh and he did not want to. Sergeant Paoletta and DC Rayner also came into the booking hall. Mr. Bahramzadeh kept trying to plead his case and DC Rayner told him that it was for the judge to decide.

[56] DC Choo-Wing advised Sergeant Paoletta of the charges laid against Mr. Bahramzadeh and that he was to be held for a show cause hearing. Sergeant Paoletta explained the process to Mr. Bahramzadeh. The following exchange then took place:

Mr. Bahramzadeh: So, as you said, sir, thank you very much. Sergeant Paoletta: You’re welcome. Mr. Bahramzadeh: I was, ah, assaulted, people, right? Am I assaulted? Do you have my, an injury? Sergeant Paoletta: Do I have an injury, or do you have an injury, is that what you’re asking? Mr. Bahramzadeh: Do you see injury on my face? Sergeant Paoletta: There is some old blood on your nose, yes. DC Choo-Wing: Apparently when he was paraded the injury was there, it’s been documented in an injury report, it’s been put in already. Sergeant Paoletta: Okay, thank you officer. Mr. Bahramzadeh: So, this is, ah, is, ah, if I was attacking someone, they should get injured. If I was attacked with someone, I got injured. So, this is a witness.

[57] DC Rayner then explained to Mr. Bahramzadeh that the officers were not trying his case in the booking hall and that he could speak to a judge in the morning. Sergeant Paoletta told Mr. Bahramzadeh that he could also speak to duty counsel the following day and tell duty counsel what his concerns were.

[58] Mr. Bahramzadeh was put in a cell at approximately 1:02 a.m. The video in the cells area shows that Mr. Bahramzadeh was wearing shoes as he was walking to his cell with DC Choo-Wing and PC Azzopardi. After Mr. Bahramzadeh was lodged in the cells, his photographs and fingerprints were taken by PC Azzopardi and PC Campbell.

[59] During the night, PC Campbell and PC Azzopardi took turns walking around the cells approximately every half hour or so, to make sure that all was in order. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not ask for medical assistance while he was in his cell.

[60] At approximately 7:08 a.m. on July 24, 2008, police officers brought Mr. Bahramzadeh and two other persons to the courthouse.

d. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s time at the police station – Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence

[61] Mr. Bahramzadeh states in his affidavit that his right-side nostril was bleeding while he was at the police station, and he asked DC Choo-Wing to see a doctor. According to Mr. Bahramzadeh, DC Choo-Wing told him that he did not need to see a doctor. Mr. Barahmzadeh also states that he asked another officer, PC Campbell, and that PC Campbell also refused his request to see a doctor. Mr. Bahramzadeh complains that his wrist was injured “because the handcuff was very tight” and that the left side of his head was injured as well.

[62] During his cross-examination, Mr. Bahramzadeh said that he did not ask for medical assistance in the booking hall, while the conversations were being recorded, as this was not important for him at that time. His focus was on being released.

[63] Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence is that he asked DC Choo-Wing and PC Campbell to give him jail shoes and they both refused. According to Mr. Bahramzadeh, he was barefoot until 8 a.m. and was only given shoes at that time.

e. Criminal proceeding

[64] Mr. Bahramzadeh was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, assault with a weapon, threatening death and mischief under $5,000 (for urinating on his neighbours’ door). Although Mr. Bahramzadeh was taken to bail court on July 24, 2008, he was not released on bail until July 31, 2008. However, he was not brought back to the police station after court on July 24, 2008 and would have been held in a provincial correctional facility until his release. The terms ultimately imposed by the bail court included a provision that prevented Mr. Bahramzadeh from returning to his home. As a result, Mr. Bahramzadeh went to live at Seaton House, a homeless shelter for single men operated by the City of Toronto. He lived there for many months.

[65] Mr. Bahramzadeh pleaded not guilty to the four charges and went to trial before a judge alone, Justice Dobney. He was represented by a lawyer at his criminal trial. Three of the persons who were present in the apartment of Mr. Bahramzadeh’s neighbours on July 23, 2008 testified at trial. Mr. Bahramzadeh also testified. No police officers testified at Mr. Bahramzadeh’s criminal trial.

[66] On December 23, 2009, Mr. Bahramzadeh was found guilty and convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and assault with a weapon. The relevant weapon was the kitchen knife that he was holding in his hand during his interaction with his neighbours on July 23, 2008. Justice Dobney expressly rejected Mr. Bahramzadeh’s defence of self-defence. Mr. Bahramzadeh was acquitted of threatening death and mischief under $5,000.

[67] On February 17, 2010, Justice Dobney imposed a suspended sentence with a 18-month probation on Mr. Bahramzadeh.

[68] Mr. Bahramzadeh did not appeal from his convictions and sentence.

3. January 30, 2009 event

[69] On January 30, 2009, while Mr. Bahramzadeh was on bail waiting for his trial, he was physically assaulted by another resident of Seaton House, Michael Anthony Jones. Mr. Jones punched Mr. Bahramzadeh in his left-side rib and in the face. Mr. Bahramzadeh called 911 at 8:42 p.m. and asked for an ambulance.

a. Police evidence

[70] On January 30, 2009, PC Durst was working with his escort, PC MacIsaac, at 51 Division. They were assigned to respond to Mr. Bahramzadeh’s 911 call at approximately 9 p.m. When they arrived at Seaton House, an ambulance was on scene with Mr. Bahramzadeh and was ready to take him to St. Michael’s Hospital. Sergeant Hayles was also at the scene. The officers determined that PC Durst and PC MacIsaac would go to the hospital, but that Sergeant Hayles would not go.

[71] PC Durst and PC MacIsaac arrived at the hospital at approximately 9:33 p.m. PC Durst spoke with Mr. Bahramzadeh at the hospital. Mr. Bahramzadeh gave PC Durst a statement regarding the assault. PC Durst wrote the statement in his memobook and Mr. Bahramzadeh signed it. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not provide the name of his attacker to PC Durst. The officers arranged for a police photographer to attend to take photos to document Mr. Bahramzadeh’s injuries, but he declined to be photographed.

[72] The staff at Seaton House gave to PC Durst and PC MacIsaac the name and date of birth of the suspect. PC Durst and PC MacIsaac both wrote the same information in their respective memobooks: Mike Anthony Jones, date of birth: May 19, 1977. They asked Seaton House staff to review their video surveillance to see if the assault was recorded and to call if it was. They also asked staff to contact the police if Mr. Jones returned to Seaton House.

[73] PC Durst subsequently prepared an occurrence report. The matter was assigned to a detective. PC Durst and PC MacIsaac were not involved in the investigation after January 30, 2009.

[74] No one was ever arrested for the assault committed against Mr. Bahramzadeh on January 30, 2009. The occurrence report contains the following information that appears to have been added on June 25, 2009 by Detective Bourque:

Leads in this matter have disolved [sic]. The suspects [sic] name and D.O.B. have proved to be false. There are no leads to follow-up on at this time.

[75] Sergeant Hayles, PC Durst and PC MacIsaac did not know that Mr. Bahramzadeh was facing criminal charges when they dealt with this matter on January 30, 2009. They had no knowledge about the July 23, 2018 event.

b. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence

[76] According to Mr. Bahramzadeh, while he was waiting for an ambulance at Seaton House, he asked a Seaton House employee for the name of the person who had attacked him. The employee located Mr. Jones’ ID card and gave the following information to Mr. Bahramzadeh: Michael Anthony Jones, date of birth: May 19, 1975. Mr. Bahramzadeh states that the same employee gave a copy of Mr. Jones’ ID card to the police after they arrived at Seaton House. Mr. Bahramzadeh complains that the officers did not correctly note the name and date of birth of Mr. Jones.

[77] Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence is that the police took his statement inside of Seaton House, before he was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital by ambulance. He states that he was not able to review the statement that he gave to PC Durst because of the pain that he was feeling.

[78] Mr. Bahramzadeh alleges in his affidavit that St. Michael’s Hospital refused to provide him with medical care after PC Durst spoke with a nurse. PC Durst does not recall speaking with a nurse at the hospital.

[79] Mr. Bahramzadeh complains that the police did not inform him that they could not find Mr. Jones. He says that he saw Mr. Jones quite often in February 2009 in the Sherbourne and Queen area. Mr. Bahramzadeh has other complaints regarding the investigation conducted by the police, including the failure to use the video surveillance at Seaton House.

[80] During his cross-examination at trial, Mr. Bahramzadeh acknowledged that his allegation that PC Brannigan was involved in the assault at Seaton House was a guess. There is no evidence supporting such guess.

4. The action

[81] Mr. Bahramzadeh commenced this action on July 21, 2010. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim set out the relief claimed by Mr. Bahramzadeh:

1. The plaintiff claims a. $700,000.00 against the Toronto Police Services Board and officer Amanda [Brannigan] for negligence resulting in loss of property, and physical and psychological damage due to a hateful and brutal arrest; and b. Return of property including a computer hard disk.

2. The Plaintiff seeks an order granting him five hot dog vending spots.

[82] Mr. Bahramzadeh alleges the following in his Statement of Claim regarding his arrest on July 23, 2008:

5. Soon after that around 9:30 again the Plaintiff heard a loud bang on his door. He thought it was his neighbor returning back to start fighting, but this time it was two police officers, one of whom was the defendant Amanda [Brannigan] […].

6. The Plaintiff opened the door because they said they were the police. Once he opened the door the police garbed [sic] the Plaintiff, used unnecessary force to arrest him resulting in injuries to his nose which he continues to suffer from.

7. The police did not allow the Plaintiff to wear shoes or lock his door, and dragged him into a police car.

8. The police then took the Plaintiff outside of the city instead of a police station. The Plaintiff feared for his life at that point, which has resulted in psychological damage.

9. After some time the police brought the Plaintiff to a police station and they kept him there for 8 days in jail. He was released on a bail program. The bail program did not allow the Plaintiff to enter my [sic] apartment building and he was asked to live at the Seaton House shelter until further notice.

10. After being released from jail, the Plaintiff was allowed to enter his apartment building to pick up some belongings, but with police officer escort.

11. When the Plaintiff returned to his apartment to pick up some belongings with officers escort, he was unable to find his removable hard drive. That hard drive contained many years of hard work involving translating computer textbook in to Farsi. A watch was also missing which it was given to him as a gift by his lovely sister who died after the year 2000.

12. The Plaintiff submits that the Toronto Police Services Board and Amanda [Brannigan] are responsible for the stolen items and were obligated to take necessary steps to protect an arrested person’s property. In the case of the Plaintiff, not only did they not care but they purposely did not allow him to lock his door.

[83] Mr. Bahramzadeh also makes the following allegations regarding the assault at Seaton House on January 30, 2009:

15. After experiencing this type of activity the Plaintiff realized that the Seaton House environment was becoming an unsafe place. The Plaintiff notified his lawyer and legal aid about the environment and his safety. His lawyer tried several time [sic] to convince the crown attorney to allow the Plaintiff to return home but was unsuccessful. Legal Aid also refused to help.

16. When the Plaintiff was residing at Seaton House, on January 30, 2009, Mr. Michael Anthony Jones, approached the Plaintiff in a very aggressive manner and told him “are we in Canada or not” and he punched the Plaintiff’s left side rib three times as hard as he could inside the Seaton House building.

17. The Plaintiff saw he had rings on his fingers which he used those rings as a weapon. The Plaintiff was sent to St. Michael Hospital to take x-ray. The next day he noticed blood coming from his mouth demonstrating lung damage from that attack. The Plaintiff strongly believes the attacker was encouraged to attack him.

18. Officer [Brannigan] and the Toronto Police Services Board are responsible for the health and the safety of the arrested person. The Plaintiff pleads that in his case the defendants did not care about his safety and purposely put him in a miserable situation causing extra psychological damage.

[84] Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim requests that this Court “take action” with respect to three matters. This paragraph reads as follows:

The Plaintiff pleads that his brutal arrest is the result of unfair justice and is the direct violation of the principles of natural justice human rights, and therefore requests the Superior Court to take action for: a. The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination from police service b. The Elimination of All Forms of unfair justice against poor people c. The Elimination of forcing poor people by crown attorney to plead guilty at least to one of the police charges

[85] The Defendants served a Statement of Defence on January 27, 2011. While the Defendants acknowledge that the Toronto Police Services Board is liable with respect to torts committed by members of the Toronto Police Service in the course of their employment, they deny that any such torts were committed and that there was any breach of duty owed to Mr. Bahramzadeh. They also deny that Mr. Bahramzadeh sustained the damages as alleged and state that they do not have possession of any computer hard disk belonging to Mr. Bahramzadeh.

5. Closing submissions of the Plaintiff

[86] At the end of the trial, it was agreed that the closing submissions would be done in writing, and that there would be no oral closing submissions, unless otherwise advised by the Court.

[87] Mr. Bahramzadeh delivered written closing submissions. In his submissions, he states that his arrest on July 23, 2008 was based on untrue and fabricated allegations that his neighbour and “dishonest police officers” made against him. He argues that if the police officers had investigated just a little bit about the alleged puddle of urine at his neighbours’ door, then it would have been discovered that the neighbours’ accusations were untrue. He submits that his actions, including the holding of the knife, were lawful, reasonable and rational in the situation because he was acting in self-defence. He complains that the police officers did not do a proper investigation about the July 23, 2008 event and did not ask him questions.

[88] Mr. Bahramzadeh includes certain allegations against counsel for the Defendants in his written submissions. Counsel for the Defendants is not a party to this action. The allegations are unsupported and/or irrelevant and I will not discuss them further.

[89] Mr. Bahramzadeh’s reply closing submissions refer to information that was not adduced in evidence at trial, including information regarding the doors at the apartment building where Mr. Bahramzadeh resided on July 23, 2008. I have not considered this information. This information is not new and no explanation has been provided as to why it was not adduced in evidence during the trial.

[90] Mr. Bahramzadeh requests the following in his written closing submissions:

1. Council [sic] for crown attorney must stop forcing people to plead guilty to one of the police charges
2. Elimination of unfair justice against poor people
3. Police brutality in Canada is a serious problem and this issue should be fixed forever.
4. The lying cops should be fired from the police department without benefits.
5. Students, who wants [sic] to become police officers, first need to be very honest and trustworthy and they must be able to distinguish lie and truth
6. Plaintiff claiming before 2008 incident I was examined by a number of doctors they reached exactly the same conclusion that I was a pleasant and healthy person that I am intitle [sic] to receive fixed amount of money (two million) for physical and psychological and property damage (please refer to my medical records starting from Tab 43 up Tab 58) the insurance company must pay the cost of damages.
7. Plaintiff says, “if I am not satisfied with the final decisions of the Court, I will complain to international communities, I will write a petition, I will collect millions signature [sic] for the petition.

[91] Mr. Bahramzadeh also states that he was deprived of his father’s inheritance and that the July 23, 2008 incident prevented him from getting married. There is no evidence supporting these allegations and they are not pleaded. As a result, I will not discuss them further.

[92] Given that I have accepted many of the Defendants’ submissions in coming to the conclusion that the action should be dismissed, it would be unnecessarily duplicative to summarize the Defendants’ closing submissions. The substance of the Defendants’ submissions is interwoven in the Discussion section below.

B. DISCUSSION

1. Abuse of process

[93] I agree with the Defendants’ submission that Mr. Bahramzadeh is seeking to use this civil action to relitigate and challenge the criminal convictions against him. I reject Mr. Bahramzadeh’s submissions to that effect as they are an abuse of process.

[94] As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para. 52 (“C.U.P.E.”), relitigation carries serious detrimental effects and should be avoided unless the circumstances dictate that relitigation is in fact necessary to enhance the credibility and the effectiveness of the adjudicative process as a whole. The Supreme Court noted that these considerations are particularly apposite when the attempt is to relitigate a criminal conviction as casting doubt over the validity of a criminal conviction is a very serious matter: see C.U.P.E. at para. 54.

[95] The Supreme Court gave the following examples of circumstances where relitigation may enhance, rather than impeach, the integrity of the judicial system: (1) when the first proceeding is tainted by fraud or dishonesty; (2) when fresh, new evidence, previously unavailable, conclusively impeaches the original results; or (3) when fairness dictates that the original result should not be binding in the new context. See C.U.P.E. at para. 52.

[96] The circumstances identified by the Supreme Court in C.U.P.E. are not present in this case and I find that there are no circumstances that would justify the relitigation of Mr. Bahramzadeh’s criminal convictions. Mr. Bahramzadeh was represented by counsel at his trial, he did not appeal the convictions, no new information has surfaced and there is no evidence of fraud or that the criminal process was tainted in any way. [4] Thus, his convictions stand and he cannot argue in this civil action that he did not do was he was previously found to have done beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Torts of negligent investigation and wrongful arrest

[97] While they are not expressly pleaded in Mr. Bahramzadeh’s Statement of Claim, some of the arguments made by Mr. Bahramzadeh could raise the torts of negligent investigation and wrongful arrest. In order to be successful on the tort of negligent investigation, Mr. Bahramzadeh would need to show, among other things, that the criminal proceeding was terminated in his favour: see Romanic v. Johnson, 2012 ONSC 3449 at paras. 9, 28; aff’d 2013 ONCA 23 at paras. 6, 12. Mr. Bahramzadeh cannot establish this element as he was convicted.

[98] With respect to the tort of wrongful arrest, the absence of reasonable and probable grounds is an essential element: see Parsaei v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2017 ONCA 512 at para. 7. In my view, the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Bahramzadeh on July 23, 2008 after speaking to Mr. Bahramzadeh’s neighbours and seeing the picture of him holding a knife. In any event, Mr. Bahramzadeh’s convictions in this case foreclose an argument that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to support his arrest. See Wolf v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2012 ONSC 72 at paras. 20-22.

3. Alleged use of force during the arrest on July 23, 2008

[99] I accept the Defendants’ submission that Mr. Bahramzadeh is an unreliable narrator and that significant portions of his evidence regarding what happened on July 23, 2008 are inconsistent with the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of the evidence. A number of specific examples are discussed below. In addition, based on the entirety of the evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr. Bahramzadeh has an independent recollection of his interactions with the police on July 23, 2008. This is supported by the fact that some of Mr. Bahramzadeh’s positions at trial appeared to be based on a wrong or stretched interpretation of police records instead of his own recollections. For example, his position that only PC Brannigan and PC Cannon entered his apartment on July 23, 2008 appeared to be based on the police records that identify these two officers as the arresting officers, which Mr. Bahramzadeh wrongly interpreted as meaning that they were the only officers present.

[100] In contrast, the Defendants’ evidence is consistent among multiple witnesses, as well as multiple objective sources of evidence, including both audio and video recordings and contemporaneous records made in the ordinary course of a police investigation.

[101] I do not accept Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence regarding the circumstances of his arrest. I find that his evidence on this point is unreliable. Among other things:

a. I reject Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence that only PC Brannigan and PC Cannon came into his apartment on July 23, 2008. It is clear from the evidence that five police officers went into Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment on that day. This is confirmed by the contemporaneous audio recordings and the contemporaneous I/CAD [5] report for this particular call for service. Further, the contemporaneous notes of all five police officers are all consistent on this point. [6] I note, among other things, that the audio recordings confirm that Sergeant Jones was present and that he gave Mr. Bahramzadeh’s identification and keys to PC Brannigan and PC Cannon before they left for the police station. b. I also reject Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence that he opened the door to the police officers. If Mr. Bahramzadeh had opened the door, PC Cannon would not have had to ask dispatch to contact the landlord for help to open the door. Further, if Mr. Bahramzadeh had opened the door, he would have seen Sergeant Jones and realized that there were more than two officers present. The memobooks of all five officers who were present noted that Sergeant Jones gained entry to the apartment due to exigent circumstances. I agree with the Defendants’ submission that there would have been no reason for the officers to take the time to record this detail and introduce a potential issue regarding a warrantless entry if Mr. Baharamzadeh had, in fact, opened the door to them. c. I do not accept Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence that PC Brannigan and PC Cannon were screaming “Where did you pee?” while they were arresting him. It would not have made any sense for the officers to do so. As both officers noted, they were concerned about the knife. In comparison, the alleged urination was a minor concern. It would not have been the focus of the officers during the arrest. Further, both PC Brannigan and PC Cannon pointed out in their respective affidavits that asking such a question could potentially cause difficulties in the prosecution by eliciting a statement in such a way that it would not be admissible. d. While all five police officers who were present at the apartment building documented the warrantless entry into Mr. Bahramzdeh’s apartment in their memobooks, none of them made any notes regarding the use of force during Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest.

[102] I similarly do not accept Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence that he was injured during the arrest. Among other things:

a. Sergeant Jones was present during Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest, but, as shown in the booking hall video, he asked about the cut on Mr. Baharamzadeh’s nose very shortly after Mr. Bahramzadeh came into the booking hall. He also asked whether Mr. Bahramzadeh had smashed his nose against the screen in the car. Sergeant Jones would not have asked these questions had Mr. Bahramzadeh been injured during the arrest and his nose was bleeding in his apartment. Further, the reaction of both PC Brannigan and PC Cannon on the booking hall video following Sergeant Jones’ questions about Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose strongly suggest that they had not previously noticed the blood on Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose. b. Mr. Bahramzadeh was asked by Sergeant Jones what happened to his nose and whether he was in good health. Mr. Bahramzadeh did not answer the questions, but, rather, kept asking Sergeant Jones to find out who was guilty and who was evil. This behaviour is inconsistent with his allegation that he sustained a fracture of the nose during his arrest, that he had a very bad headache, and that he wanted medical attention. c. Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose was mentioned again during Mr. Bahramzadeh’s second attendance in the booking hall before Sergeant Paoletta. Again, he did not complain about his nose or being injured during his arrest, and he did not request medical attention. d. Further, the exchange between Mr. Bahramzadeh and Sergeant Paoletta in the booking hall about the blood on Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose (reproduced in paragraph 56 above) seriously undermines Mr. Bahramzadeh’s position that the injury on his nose was caused by PC Brannigan and PC Cannon during his arrest. After repeating that he had been attacked by his neighbours, Mr. Bahramzadeh suggested that the blood on his nose supported his version that he was the one who had been attacked and that the blood on his nose was a “witness”. Given that Mr. Bahramzadeh never mentioned being “attacked” by the police on July 23, 2008, the only possible interpretation of this statement is that Mr. Bahramzadeh was suggesting that the injury on his nose was caused by his neighbours. e. I reject Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence that he requested medical attention “off video” while he was with DC Choo-Wing or PC Campbell or any other officer. In my view, if Mr. Bahramzadeh had wanted to have medical attention, he would have mentioned it to the sergeant in the booking hall. I find that Mr. Bahramzadeh never asked for medical attention and, in fact, refused any assistance with his nose. The memobooks of both PC Brannigan and PC Cannon have the notation “medical refused”. Further, in response to the comment of PC Campbell in the booking hall about the blood on Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose (“They didn’t even wipe the blood off your nose”), DC Choo-Wing responded that Mr. Bahramzadeh had refused to have the blood on his nose cleaned. Mr. Bahramzadeh was present when DC Choo-Wing said this, and he did not deny that this was the case. Again, he did not ask for medical attention at that time, nor did he ask that the blood be cleaned from his nose. f. There is no evidence supporting Mr. Bahramzadeh’s allegation that he was bleeding from his right-side nostril on July 23, 2008. Given that Mr. Bahramzadeh would not have been able to wipe his nose while he was handcuffed, one would expect to see blood on his face and shirt had he been bleeding from his nostril. As noted above, Mr. Bahramzadeh was wearing a white shirt that evening and there is no apparent blood on his shirt. Further, the photos of Mr. Bahramzadeh taken by the police do not show blood near his nostril.

[103] Mr. Bahramzadeh’s complaint that he was not given shoes until 8 a.m. on July 24, 2008 also undermines the reliability of his evidence. The booking hall videos show that PC Brannigan requested and was given shoes before bringing Mr. Bahramzadeh to the CIB, and Mr. Bahramzadeh is seen wearing shoes in a subsequent video, as he was walking to his cell.

[104] In light of the foregoing, Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence regarding what happened on July 23, 2008 is completely unreliable and cannot be accepted. [7] Thus, he has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was injured by police officers during his arrest.

[105] I accept the Defendants’ evidence that Mr. Bahramzadeh’s very minor injury to the nose – which was either an old cut that reopened or a new cut – was a self-inflicted injury that was sustained by Mr. Bahramzadeh in the police car during transit to the police station, while he was moving around in the back seat and pressing his face on the plastic screen dividing the front and back seats. In particular, I accept the evidence of PC Brannigan and PC Cannon on this point. Their evidence is consistent, contemporaneous and corroborated by other evidence. In contrast, Mr. Bahramzadeh’s memory of the car ride from his apartment building to the police station is, again, completely unreliable as he alleged in his Statement of Claim that he was driven out of the city, which is not possible in light of the objective contemporaneous records.

[106] I also note that there is no cogent evidence that Mr. Bahramzadeh sustained any injury on July 23, 2008 aside from a small cut on the nose.

[107] Since I have found that Mr. Bahramzadeh injured his nose in the police car while being transported to the station, this raises the issue of whether PC Brannigan and PC Cannon were negligent in not buckling Mr. Bahramzadeh in the back seat of the police car. PC Brannigan and PC Cannon gave evidence that it was standard practice not to buckle a prisoner in handcuffs. Mr. Bahramzadeh has not adduced any evidence contradicting the officers’ evidence on this point or any evidence showing that the standard of care applicable to police officers in 2008 required that he be buckled in the back seat of the police car. As a result, Mr. Bahramzadeh has not established that there was any negligence involved in his transportation to the police station.

[108] In light of the foregoing, I find that the cut on Mr. Bahramzadeh’s nose on July 23, 2008 was a self-inflicted injury caused by Mr. Bahramzadeh’s own conduct while being transported to the police station.

4. January 30, 2009 event

[109] In my view, it is unnecessary to spend a lot of time discussing the January 30, 2009 event at Seaton House. There is no evidence whatsoever that the police or PC Brannigan had anything to do with Mr. Jones assaulting Mr. Bahramzadeh on that day. There is also no evidence that PC Durst, PC MacIsaac and/or Sergeant Hayles knew about the July 23, 2008 event and/or that Mr. Bahramzadeh had been criminally charged with respect to that event. I note that the two events took place in different parts of Toronto and that the police officers who attended at Seaton House were assigned to 51 Division while the officers who were involved in the July 23, 2008 event were from 41 Division. Further, there is no evidence that Mr. Bahramzadeh did not receive proper medical care at St. Michael’s Hospital on January 30, 2009 and, if that occurred, that this was somehow because of the police.

[110] Mr. Bahramzadeh appears to suggest that the police were responsible for him living at Seaton House. However, Mr. Bahramzadeh lived there because of bail conditions imposed by the court. In his affidavit, Mr. Bahramzadeh states that his lawyer tried to change the bail conditions so that Mr. Bahramzadeh could return live in his apartment, but he was unsuccessful in convincing the crown attorney to do so. It does not appear that a formal application was brought to vary his bail conditions. Given that the bail conditions were imposed by the court with the involvement of the crown prosecutor, the police are not responsible for Mr. Bahramzadeh living at Seaton House.

[111] Mr. Bahramzadeh also appears to allege negligent investigation on the part of the police, although it is not pleaded in his Statement of Claim. Such a claim cannot succeed. The police do not owe victims of crime a private law duty of care in relation to the investigation of alleged crimes: see Wellington v. Ontario, 2011 ONCA 274 at para. 20 (“Wellington”) and Connelly v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2018 ONCA 368 at para. 6. [8]

[112] Thus, Mr. Bahramzadeh has failed to prove any wrongful conduct on the part of the police in relation to the January 30, 2009 event.

5. Damages

[113] Given that I have concluded that Mr. Bahramzadeh has failed to establish any tort, negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants, the issue of damages does not arise. However, as stated above, there is no cogent evidence that Mr. Bahramzadeh sustained any injury on July 23, 2008 aside from a small cut on the nose. Among other things, there is no medical evidence to support the allegation that a fracture of the nose was caused by his arrest. I note that there is evidence that Mr. Bahramzadeh has a history of nasal issues and that more than 15 years before his arrest, Mr. Bahramzadeh had nasal surgery in Iran, prior to immigrating to Canada. This raises a substantial causation issue and Mr. Bahramzadeh has adduced no evidence to address it.

[114] Similarly, Mr. Bahramzadeh has not adduced cogent evidence that he suffered a mental health or psychological injury as a result of his arrest on July 23, 2008. The record before me includes medical notes that state that Mr. Bahramzadeh was suffering from anxiety and clinical depression in July 2007 (i.e., before the arrest) and was prescribed with the anti-depressant Paxil at that time. Again, this raises a substantial causation issue and Mr. Bahramzadeh has adduced no evidence to address it.

[115] Mr. Bahramzadeh has also failed to establish that the police was responsible for the items that were allegedly missing from his apartment, i.e., a computer hard drive and a watch. I accept the Defendants’ evidence that they locked the door of Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment when they left on July 23, 2008 and that they do not have these items in their possession. I note, among other things, that PC Maadanian’s contemporaneous notes state that he located the accused’s keys and secured the apartment. There is no cogent evidence contradicting the police’s evidence.

6. Other relief sought by Mr. Bahramzadeh

[116] Mr. Bahramzadeh also seeks other relief that is not available to him. He seeks an order granting him five hot dog vending spots. The Defendants cannot be ordered to grant him five hot dog vending spots as they do not have the power to do so. Further, this relief is unrelated to the damages allegedly sustained by Mr. Bahramzadeh as a result of the July 23, 2008 and January 30, 2009 events.

[117] As stated above, Mr. Bahramzadeh also asks in his Statement of Claim that this court “take action” for:

a. The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination from police service b. The Elimination of All Forms of unfair justice against poor people c. The Elimination of forcing poor people by crown attorney to plead guilty at least to one of the police charges

[118] Mr. Bahramzadeh does not specify how this Court is to take action and what it should do.

[119] Choosing the appropriate response to social problems is not the role of the judiciary: see Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 at paras. 36, 69 (“Doucet-Boudreau”). Further, the relief sought by Mr. Bahramzadeh is unrelated to the adjudication of the civil dispute before this Court:

a. Racial discrimination has not been found in this case and there is no evidence supporting such a finding. I note that Mr. Bahramzadeh brought an application before the Human Rights Tribunal against the Toronto Police Services Board in 2010. Mr. Bahramzadeh alleged discrimination based on race and ethnic origin with respect to services in relation to the January 30, 2009 assault at Seaton House. He also alleged reprisal. The application was dismissed in August 2012 because the Tribunal found that there was not any link between Mr. Bahramzadeh’s application and his race or ethnic origin. b. There is no finding of “unfair justice” in this case. Mr. Bahramzadeh was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have also found that there were probable and reasonable grounds for Mr. Bahramzadeh’s arrest and rejected Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence regarding the use of force during his arrest. c. Mr. Bahramzadeh pleaded not guilty at his criminal trial and had his day in court. He was not forced to plead guilty by anyone.

[120] In my view, Mr. Bahramzadeh is asking this court to depart unduly and unnecessarily from its role of adjudicating disputes and granting remedies that address the matter of those disputes: see Doucet-Boudreau at para. 56. Thus, I conclude that the additional heads of relief sought by Mr. Bahramzadeh do not constitute appropriate remedies.

C. CONCLUSION

[121] The action is dismissed.

[122] If costs cannot be agreed upon, the Defendants shall deliver submissions of not more than four pages (double-spaced), excluding the bill of costs, by September 19, 2023. Mr. Bahramzadeh shall deliver his responding submissions (with the same page limit) by October 3, 2023. The submissions of all parties shall also be sent to my assistant by e-mail. I ask that counsel for the Defendants upload the costs submissions of all parties onto CaseLines.

Vermette J.

Released: September 5, 2023

Footnotes

[1] Several of the police officers’ names and ranks have changed since the events in issue. These Reasons for Judgment refer to the officers’ ranks at the time of the events but refer to their current names.

[2] Many months later, on February 8, 2009, Detective Kaldis asked DC Gobeil and DC Binning to attend at Mr. Bahramzadeh’s apartment building to take statements from two persons who had witnessed the incident on July 23, 2008. DC Gobeil and DC Binning did so.

[3] I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence as this is inconsequential. The statement allegedly made by Mr. Bahramzadeh to DC Stave was not used at Mr. Bahramzadeh’s criminal trial. Further, while Mr. Bahramzadeh was convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and assault with a weapon, he was acquitted of mischief for urinating on his neighbour’s door.

[4] As stated above, no police officers testified at Mr. Bahramzadeh’s criminal trial.

[5] The I/CAD system is the computer-aided dispatch system used by the Toronto Police Service.

[6] Sergeant Jones’ notes indicate that PC Allen was present instead of PC Cannon. However, all contemporaneous records and the notes of all the other officers refer to PC Cannon, not PC Allen. It appears that Sergeant Jones may have confused the two officers as both PC Allen and PC Cannon are white, female, of approximately the same age and with long dark hair.

[7] I note that Mr. Bahramzadeh’s evidence was also found to be unreliable in the context of a proceeding that he commenced before the Human Rights Tribunal against the Toronto Police Services Board and Chief William Blair: see Bahramzadeh-Germi v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1137 at para. 35.

[8] The exception mentioned in Wellington at para. 20 regarding the duty to warn a narrow and distinct group of potential victims of a specific threat does not apply in this case.