Stephen Chisholm

The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.

The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.

The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality for damages arising from a single-vehicle motorcycle accident caused by a surface discontinuity at an intersection.

The court assessed the plaintiffs' damages, including general damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act claims.

However, applying the four-part test for municipal liability under section 44 of the Municipal Act, the court found that while the roadway was in a state of non-repair that caused the accident, the municipality successfully established a statutory defence because the height of the discontinuity met the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was parked in his vehicle with a friend when approached by police.

The police demanded his driver's licence, which he refused to provide, questioning the reason for the stop.

The police forcibly removed him from the vehicle, grounded him, handcuffed him, and searched his vehicle, finding only a Bluetooth device.

He was then released.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, assault, false arrest, and Charter breaches.

The court found the police were conducting a criminal investigation without articulable cause, not a Highway Traffic Act stop.

The detention, arrest, and search were unlawful, and the force used was unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff and his family $59,800 in tort damages, but declined to award additional Charter or punitive damages.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligence, false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at a house party.

The court found that the police officer assaulted the plaintiff without justification, falsely arrested him without reasonable and probable grounds, and maliciously prosecuted him for assaulting a peace officer.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, special damages for the cost of defending the criminal charge, and punitive damages, totaling $28,503.25.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the full Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigative file in a civil action alleging negligence, assault, and Charter breaches arising from a police use-of-force incident.

The SIU, a non‑party, resisted production of certain civilian and police witness statements that had been obtained under assurances of confidentiality.

The court applied the factors from Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro and emphasized that a moving party must demonstrate both relevance and that proceeding to trial without the documents would be unfair.

The court found the plaintiff had not made reasonable efforts to obtain evidence from available witnesses and could not rely on the SIU investigation as a substitute for civil discovery.

Production of the remaining witness statements was therefore refused.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches arising from a police detention following an assault investigation.

The plaintiffs commenced their action more than two years after the incident but argued that the limitation period should be extended under the discoverability rule due to alleged ongoing investigations involving police and a regulatory authority.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence linking later investigations to the incident giving rise to the claim or demonstrating that the claim could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.

Applying the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found the action was commenced out of time.

The defendants’ motion was granted and the action dismissed.