Baron v. Niagara Police Services Board
Citation: 2026 ONSC 1946 Court File No.: 10761/15 Date: 2026-04-02
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Ronald Stuart Baron Plaintiff
— and —
Niagara Regional Police Service, Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, Chief of Police Jeffrey McGuire, Sergeant Scott Elliott, Constable Michael Nelson, Constable Jason McCarthy Defendants
Counsel: Margaret Hoy for the plaintiff Mickey Cruikshank for the defendants
Heard: March 24 – 27, 30 – 31, April 1, 2026 at Welland.
Mr Justice Ramsay
Reasons for Judgment
1The plaintiff is suing the police service, the police services board, the chief of police and three uniformed officers for battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
2The complaint arises from an incident in the early morning hours of November 23, 2014.
3On that date at 3:40 am police got a 911 call asking for help from a woman who was in the bathroom of the plaintiff's residence in St Catharines. Police arrived shortly thereafter to do a welfare check.
4The plaintiff, then aged 52, testified that after an evening at Fallsview Casino he stopped at the Avondale on Stanley Avenue. It was around midnight. He met a woman who had luggage and who said she had had an argument with her grandmother and had to go home to Welland. He said he would take her there but he had to go home to St Catharines first to let his dog out. She identified herself as Bella. We now know that she is Jody Bella Poulin, born in 1982.
5The plaintiff was fostering a Labrador puppy for the Lions Club. It was destined to be trained as a service dog and by contract it had to be let out every few hours.
6He said that when he got home, he let the dog out. While he was waiting, he smoked some marijuana and offered Ms Poulin some, which she declined. He then fell asleep on the couch in the living room.
7When police arrived, he woke up and answered the door. The dog ran to the door. He bent down to usher it in and the police entered as he did that. Constable McCarthy stayed behind to talk to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked him to step in. The other officers went to the bathroom door and spoke to the woman. The plaintiff went to the kitchen to get his identification. The police took the woman outside to speak to her. The dog ran after them. He heard the dog yelp and saw Sgt Elliott holding the dog up by the neck. He got emotional as he recounted this bit of the story. He yelled at Sgt Elliott to drop the dog, which he did. The dog ran inside. As he reached for his identification which was in his jacket that was hanging on the back of the door, he was hit by the door as Sgt Elliott barged in. Sgt Elliott grabbed him by the neck and the officer behind the plaintiff joined in. He doesn't remember how he got outside, but outside he was thrown up against the fence, struck, kicked in the ribs and on the face and Tasered. Eventually the officers handcuffed him behind his back. One officer stood on his testicles. He was placed into the police car. He asked for shoes. One officer laughed and told him to fuck off. Notwithstanding, the officers did retrieve his shoes and take them into the station. He was informed of his right to counsel and taken to the station. There his injuries were photographed at his request and he was seen by paramedics and taken to hospital. X-rays and CT scan revealed no broken jaw or ribs. Soft tissue injuries were diagnosed and Tylenol was prescribed. Thereafter he was released on a promise to appear.
8The charge was withdrawn on February 22, 2016. I have no evidence why. It may be that the seriousness of the alleged assault did not justify the court time that would have been required to prove it.
9The plaintiff testified that he suffered bruises and bumps, a blood-filled eye, blurred vision, loose teeth, headaches, trouble moving his jaw, lack of mobility in his right shoulder, severe pain in his testicles and depression. He no longer golfs or trains dogs. His ribs still pop out of place and have to be forced back. The injuries interfered with his sex life. His last relationship, which began in 2019, ended in 2026. He was diagnosed with PTSD.
10On the officers' testimony, the plaintiff let them in. They went to the bathroom door, then out the back. Constable McCarthy stayed behind. Sgt Elliott (since retired) blocked the dog from running out the kitchen door to the enclosed back porch, but when the door to the yard was opened, the dog ran out. Elliott followed it out and grabbed it by the collar and guided it back inside. Once inside the dog hesitated and resisted further movement. The dog whimpered and the collar started to come off. He was about to pick the dog up by the shoulders (I take it by placing his hand under the forelegs) when the plaintiff yelled at him, pushed him and took a fighting stance or went to take a swing. Mr Elliott regained his balance and grabbed the plaintiff to stop any further assault. Elliott and Nelson grabbed the plaintiff. McCarthy, who was behind them, ran to the kitchen and pushed the three of them out the door. They came out the door entangled in one another. Their momentum carried them onto the fence. The plaintiff resisted their attempts to handcuff him. Eventually they got him onto the ground. They forced his hands behind his back and Nelson handcuffed him with Gordon's handcuffs. They then put him into the police car and took him to the station. The officers could not explain specifically how the plaintiff got his injuries. All they could say was that they occurred during the struggle. Elliott did not use his Taser. Only he was equipped with a Taser. Nobody struck or kicked the plaintiff.
11The officers' testimony was consistent with one another on the main points. They did not always have the same point of view and were not always looking the same way. They were unsure of some details but considering the passage of time the minor inconsistencies were understandable. They tended to me more sure of what they did than what others did or where others were, which I would expect. Constable Gordon did not see the beginning of the interaction or see the plaintiff being taken to the ground. I think Nelson does not remember where he was when the incident started as well as the other officers do. Constable McCarthy seems to have been confused as to whether he saw the actual contact of the push, since the plaintiff had his back to him. He made some inconsistent statements on discovery, mainly since he was prevented from using his notes. He should not have been prevented from using his notes. In any event he would be able to understand that a push had occurred from its effect, even if he did not see the plaintiff's hands. And I accept Mr Elliott's evidence about the push.
12There was discussion transmitted over the police computer terminal after the arrest. Constable Gordon took a statement from Ms Poulin. Even though the plaintiff let them in, which Constable Gordon seems not to have noticed, the authority for their entry was the caller's concern for her safety. I see nothing untoward in the officer wanting to make a complete and correct summary. It was not a case of the officers "getting their stories straight." The only thing mentioned in the conversation is the authority to enter, and the details of the complainant's statement, which only Constable Gordon knew at that point.
13I did not find the plaintiff to be a credible witness because of the combination of a number of factors. In no particular order, they are:
a. I think that the plaintiff was less than forthcoming about the real nature of his encounter with Ms Poulin. The trip from Stanley Avenue to 4 Herrick Avenue, St Catharines must have taken no more than 20 minutes, not 40 minutes as the plaintiff said. I wonder what was really going on for three hours.
b. The plaintiff's injuries do not match what he said was done to him. The only injuries that are objectively evident are soft tissue injuries to his head and torso and the blood-filled eye. I do not believe that he had a boot mark on his face or shoulder. The marks were roughly horseshoe shaped, but they could have been caused by hitting the fence post or the ground. His loose teeth, which went from a zero to a two on the scale of looseness, were caused by longstanding gum disease. The plaintiff also has a longstanding history of headaches and back problems which, according to his physiotherapist, could be caused by sitting too long at a desk, as is required by the plaintiff's job. The rib instability does not appear in the medical records until 2017. On the morning of the incident the triage nurse checked for instability of the ribs and found none.
c. He said that Sgt Elliott choked the puppy and swung it around. But he also said that the sergeant was bent over at the time. That posture is consistent with Sgt Elliott's evidence that he was ushering the puppy into the house and inconsistent with "swinging the puppy around."
d. The plaintiff demonstrated a heightened emotional attachment to the puppy. When he got to the part about the dog, he broke down for the first time in the box. He also got very emotional when he said why he has not had a dog since. Every time he sees a dog, he sees Sgt Elliott hanging Idan (the puppy) and he can't handle it. "He has ruined my life." This reaction is over the top and bizarre.
e. The plaintiff's accounts of his loss of consciousness or lack of loss of consciousness evolved and re-evolved from the time of the incident to the examination for discovery to the trial. In triage at the hospital he reported no loss of consciousness. In examination in chief he could not remember how he got into the back yard. At examination for discovery he passed out more than once. His explanation, that he has remembered a lot of things since being in therapy, does not give me confidence in his accuracy of recollection.
f. The plaintiff testified that he was kicked in the head. But he told the triage nurse that he was not sure whether he had been kicked. A kick in the head he would have noticed.
g. The plaintiff testified that he bore two boot marks. The tread became apparent a few days after he took photographs. Why did he not take photographs to document this development?
h. The plaintiff submitted to rather uncomfortable nerve blocking injections to his ilioinguinal nerve to relieve his orchialgia. I do not doubt that he had pain but it is not associated with the events of November 23, 2014. It is observable on video that the plaintiff walked without trouble into the police station and sat down without apparent discomfort on the hard bunk of his cell. He made no mention of groin pain when he was at the hospital later that morning. The injury would have been serious enough for him to overcome any embarrassment. I do not accept his explanation for not having mentioned it.
i. The plaintiff gave vague and contradictory accounts to the consulting psychiatrist, Dr Skladman. For example he said that he may have had brain swelling and that he did not. He also told her that he could not get out of bed for four months, but according to what he told the physiotherapist he was shovelling snow by February or March.
14The officers' accounts are consistent with the objectively verifiable injuries. The accounts are consistent among themselves, subject to small differences attributable to point of view. I think it unreasonable to expect four officers to agree as to exactly where they and their colleagues were at every precise point in a transaction that lasted less than two minutes.
15The officers' accounts are plausible. Why would they inflict a brutal and unnecessary beating in the presence of a civilian witness, Ms Poulin, whom they had no reason to trust to cover for them? The plaintiff is not a big man. Elliot and Nelson are a bit bigger than average. McCarthy is huge. They would have no need to strike or kick the plaintiff to get him onto the ground. From entry into the house until the accused was under control only a minute or so elapsed. And the notion that Elliott charged at the plaintiff because he was yelled at strikes me as ridiculous.
16The plaintiff was not Tasered. He says that he was Tasered as he was being held against the fence. If that had happened, the officer or officers who were holding onto him would have got a shock. He and Dr Mazzone misinterpreted the marks on his back. To be fair to Dr Mazzone, he was not so sure as to write it down.
17I find that the incident rolled out as Mr Elliott said. I conclude that hearing the puppy whimper set off the plaintiff. He was emotionally invested in the dog and he was probably feeling the effects of marijuana. The plaintiff is aggrieved at his treatment and has made things up to magnify his loss and excuse his own conduct. He was not booted or struck. He was wrestled into a fence and onto the ground, causing soft tissue injuries. Elliott's gentle tugging of the dog did not justify pushing Elliott.
18The officers had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for assault and they used no more force than was necessary to arrest him.
19It is suggested that taking the dog to the pound showed animus toward the plaintiff. I accept Mr Elliott's explanation. It was standard procedure in the case of an animal that would otherwise be left alone, and the Lion's Club information he was given did not contain a 24-hour telephone number. It was reasonable (and probably correct) for him to think that the Lions would not be available at 4 o'clock in the morning.
20The officers were in the plaintiff's home lawfully. He let them in. They had a right to enter anyway given the exigent circumstances – they were looking for someone who had asked for help and expressed fear for her safety. The plaintiff was the first to lay hands on anyone. That gave grounds to arrest him and charge him. There were no other steps to take in the investigation. There was no misfeasance. The injuries he suffered are the result of his own misconduct. If he had not assaulted the sergeant and then resisted arrest, he would not have been injured.
21If I had found the defendants liable, I would have awarded $50,000 general damages for pain and suffering on the basis that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries which caused him pain and some restriction of daily activities for a few weeks. I would also have awarded $140 for Humane Society fees and $8,475 for criminal lawyers' fees. The fence repair was covered by the landlord. I do not conclude that the plaintiff suffered PTSD. The consulting psychiatrist was sure enough of the diagnosis for the purpose of recommending treatment based on the patient's report alone, but not sure enough for court purposes, as she said repeatedly. The plaintiff did not own the dog, and there is no evidence that a few hours at the pound did it any harm. For all I know it led a productive life as a service dog and if still alive, is enjoying retirement.
22I would not have awarded him compensation for loss of income. The evidence that he might have earned $4,000 to $10,000 in bonuses is speculative. It is based on nothing more than his supposition.
23I give judgement to the defendants.
24The parties may make written submissions to costs not exceeding 3 pages in length to which a bill of costs and any offers to settle may be appended, the defendants by April 15 next and the plaintiff by April 30. The written submissions should be filed through the portal, with copies emailed to the Welland courthouse at scjwellandcourthouse@ontario.ca and cc'ed to Welland.SCJJA@ontario.ca.
J.A. Ramsay J.
Released: 2026-04-02