Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00709033-0000 DATE: 20240513 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DEBASATWA DUTTA, Plaintiff AND: PEEL REGIONAL POLICE, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE, Defendants
BEFORE: Akazaki J.
COUNSEL: Eric Wagner and Marcus Campbell, for the Defendant Ontario Provincial Police
HEARD: May 13, 2024
Endorsement
[1] This is a rule 2.1 review pursuant to a letter request from counsel for the defendant Ontario Provincial Police. Any party may file a request pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(6).
[2] The statement of claim discloses a claim for police inaction in failing or refusing to investigate and charge a party who has allegedly harassed the plaintiff and members of his family, from 2018 to the present time. That type of tort has been recognized in Canadian law as extending to the relationship between a police service and victims of crime: Traversy v. Smith 2007 CarswellOnt 7452, 161 A.C.W.S. (3d) 825, 52 C.C.L.T. (3d) 109, at para. 20. However, without accepting the adequacy of the plaintiff’s pleadings of such a cause of action, the issues that leap from the page here are the inclusion of two police services that were not involved in the facts and the lack of vicarious liability of the provincial police for the tort liability of a municipal police service.
[3] The allegations are made against the Peel Regional Police and the York Regional Police. The latter was not named a defendant. There is a catch-all allegation in the concluding paragraph stating that “the Police Services of Ontario” will be responsible for damages.
[4] There are no allegations made against the Toronto Police Service. While it appears to have been a misnomer for the York Regional Police, the court’s role is not to rewrite a party’s pleadings, including the title of proceedings.
[5] The Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 50(1), has been interpreted as restricting liability of police liability to the particular police force’s organizational authorities. Thus, the Crown as the entity potentially liable for the torts of the Ontario Provincial Police cannot be held vicariously liable for a municipal police service such as the one serving the Region of Peel.
[6] Therefore, there are grounds to believe the action is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, as against the defendants Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police. I therefore order as follows:
- The registrar shall give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff that the court is considering making an order dismissing the proceeding as against the defendants Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police.
- The plaintiff may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than ten pages in length, responding to the notice.
- If the plaintiff does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or to any other party.
- If the plaintiff files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may dismiss the action against the defendants Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police, or may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to these two defendants.
- If the court directs the registrar to give a copy of the submission to the said two defendants, those defendants may, within ten days after receiving the copy of the submission of the plaintiff, file with the court a written submission, no more than ten pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s submission and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff and, on the request of any other party, to that party.
- The proceeding is hereby stayed pending the resolution of the rule 2.1 process. The court office is directed not to accept any other filings during the period of the stay.
- The registrar shall forward the submissions to my attention.
Date: May 13, 2024 Akazaki J.