PDF- ACCESS JUSTICE – How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court
PDF Link Source – http://www.accessjustice.ca/downloads/HowtoSuethePoliceandPrivateSecurityinSmallClaimsCourt.pdf
PDF – BCCLA – How-to-Make-a-Police-Complaint-2012
PDF Link Source – https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/20120917-How-to-Make-a-Police-Complaint-2012.pdf
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/suing-rcmp-negligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Police_Department
EXAMPLE CASES
On Suewrongdoers
SOURCE – http://bcpolicecomplaints.org/sue_the_police.html
Consider taking the cops to court
The process isn’t easy, but lawsuits
might be our best hope for keeping police
and private security accountable
“The only effective check on police misconduct, in my experience, is the civil justice system,” writes lawyer Cameron Ward. After a group of arrogant, abusive Vancouver cops illegally arrested him and had him strip-searched, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner dismissed his complaint. The courts finally vindicated Ward eight years after the arrest. Despite the time and trouble, he concluded: “Staying silent is not an option. When our rights as citizens in this democracy are violated, we must stand up and fight for them.”
One of transit constable Walter Rossa’s tantrums went further than usual when he smashed Christy Joyce Logeman in the face with a flashlight. Nevertheless his employer promoted the notoriously unstable SkyTrain cop to sergeant with the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service. When Logeman’s lawsuit came to court, Rossa and his partner Ken Dorby proved themselves to be serial liars. The judge and jury saw through the cops’ crap and awarded the victim $40,000.
In another case, a Vancouver police internal investigation claimed that six cops did nothing wrong when they gave an innocent man a broken nose, cuts and a ruptured spleen. But a judge disagreed, awarding the victim $94,000.
Two other Vancouver cops were ordered to pay their victim $13,000 after a judge found them liable for assault, battery and false imprisonment for beating up a man and arresting him without reasonable grounds in 2007.
In West Vancouver, a lengthy campaign of police harassment brought no more than a verbal reprimand from the OPCC. Undeterred, the cops continued their harassment until the victim, Don Sipes, sued them. He won. When a power-tripping North Van Mountie tried to get revenge, Sipes launched a second lawsuit. (July 25, 2012 update: Sipes wins again, this time a hard-fought victory over North Vancouver RCMP when B.C. Supreme Court overturned an obstruction conviction.)
Mike Stebih wanted to see some ID from two plainclothes cops who pulled him over and demanded his driver’s licence. Victoria police constables John Musicco and Jennifer Young not only refused, but they yanked him out of his vehicle, handcuffed him on the ground, searched his van and repeatedly called him dirty names. That was no big deal to the OPCC, which called for a one-day suspension. But Stebih sued and, in an out-of-court settlement, got an undisclosed sum of money and an apology from VicPD for false arrest, false imprisonment and assault.
North Vancouver RCMP Cpl. Lesley Norman quickly escalated a conversation with Jeung Ki Park at Lions Gate Hospital and, with the help of other cops, she took him to the floor in front of his ailing mother. Park was then held in custody without charge for four hours. It took six years, but a provincial court awarded Park $15,000 for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
Vancouver police chief Jim Chu has nothing but praise for Bryan London and Nicholas Florkow, the two plainclothes thugs who hammered on Yao Wei Wu’s door at 2 a.m. and beat the shit out of him. But the innocent victim filed a lawsuit. Notwithstanding Chu’s consistent support for this act of gratuitous violence, the VPD settled out of court.
Even on those very rare occasions when the OPCC does suggest a penalty, it’s insignificant. A Victoria cop got a mere three-day suspension for an assault that caused permanent injuries. But the victim’s lawsuit brought changes in police procedure as well as a financial settlement.
(I stopped updating this page years ago. But this May 2014 story’s too good to omit.) Vancouver police Sgt. Gregory Kodak says VPD Const. Alison Hill assaulted him. He’s suing her, his own force, the police board and VPD Chief Const. Jim Chu.
Of course there’s no guarantee of success. Court action can be an onerous process involving time, money and likely the stress of reliving a traumatic incident. Linda Bush dropped a lawsuit nearly five years after her son Ian was shot and killed inside the Houston, B.C., RCMP detachment. Ms. Bush cited an enormous financial burden as well as the emotional cost of legal action. She continues, however, to advocate for reform.
The complaint process, whether for the RCMP, B.C. municipal police or B.C. security guards, too often protects those guilty of misconduct. Despite a lot of talk over the last few years, no one in the federal or provincial government, or in the opposition parties, wants to do more than tinker with a broken system. Unfortunately that might leave lawsuits as our best hope of achieving accountability.
source – http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/suing-rcmp-negligence
Suing the RCMP for Negligence, Can it be Done?
Suing the RCMP for Negligence, Can it be Done?
Is it possible to sue a member of the RCMP in British Columbia for negligence as a result of their actions in the line of duty? For example, if an RCMP member isn’t paying adequate attention when driving and causes a car crash can they be sued?
A person injured in these circumstances does have the right to seek remedy in the civil courts (a tort claim) however the Defendant will likely not be the individual officer rather the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of the Province of BC on behalf of her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of BC (the “Minister”).
The reason for this is that individual members of the RCMP enjoy statutory immunity for negligence claims if the negligence occurs in the performance of their duties. However, the Minister is ‘jointly and severally liable‘ for the negligent act meaning that the Minister can be sued. Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal addressing this area of the law.
In today’s case (Amezcua v. Taylor) the Plaintiff was injured in a car crash caused by a member of the RCMP. The RCMP member was sued directly. She agreed that the accident was as a result of her “simple and regular negligence“. She raised her statutory immunity as a defence. Realizing that this would lead to a dismissal of the claim the Plaintiff brought a motion to amend the claim. Ultimately this motion proved successful and the BC Court of Appeal allowed the proper party to be named. Before reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeal did a great job discussing the law pertaining to negligence claims against the RCMP, specifically the BC High Court stated as follows:
[3] When authorized to carry out the powers and duties of a provincial police force under an agreement between Canada and the province, an RCMP officer is deemed to be a “provincial constable” (Police Act, s. 14(2)(b)).
[4] Section 11 of the Police Act provides that “[t]he Minister” is jointly and severally liable for torts committed, in the course of their employment, by, inter alia, provincial constables. The Police Act does not define “the Minister”.
[5] Section 21 of the Police Act provides that no action lies against a police officer (“a person holding an appointment as a constable under this Act” (s. 21(1)) for negligence in the performance of their duties. The restriction does not apply in circumstances in which the officer is grossly negligent (s. 21(3)).
[6] The Solicitor General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia entered into a Provincial Police Service Agreement effective 1 April 1992, to continue until 31 March 2012. Under s. 10.7 of the Agreement, if a member of the Provincial Police Service receives the benefit of a statutory defence (such as s. 11 of the Police Act) then “Canada shall indemnify and hold harmless the Province with respect to any such claims or actions” and “Canada shall assume the conduct and the carriage of any proceeding relating to such claim.”
It’s important to understand how these statutes work together if you have been injured by the negligence of a ‘provincial constable‘ in order to properly name the parties in a lawsuit otherwise you can risk having your case dismissed.
This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of delay and prejudice in motions to amend pleadings. In today’s case the Plaintiff waited over 6 years from the expiration of the limitation period to bring a motion to add the Minister as a Defendant. The BC Court of Appeal allowed the motion despite the significant delay finding that there was an adequate explanation for this delay and no demonstrated prejudice to the Defendant. Specifically the Court held as follows:
[63] In my opinion, the chambers judge did not give due consideration to the first two factors to be considered under the Teal analysis. In the result, she failed to give effect to the overriding factor of what is just and convenient in the circumstances. The circumstances at play here were of a proposed party who, common sense demands in the absence of explanation to the contrary from the Minister, must have been informed of his potential liability. An officer for whom the Minister was jointly and severally liable for torts committed in the scope of her employment had been charged with, and had admitted to, simple negligence. The tenor of the correspondence throughout was that the Department of Justice was acting for both the defendant Taylor and the statutorily liable government representative. If the Department of Justice wished to disabuse the plaintiff of any misapprehension on this point, counsel should have explicitly stated so. The Minister’s submissions on appeal that he is prejudiced by the admission made by the defendant Taylor more than nine years ago and may have to himself allege gross negligence on the part of Taylor is not supported by evidence and places counsel for the Minister and Taylor in conflict.
[64] In my opinion, the delay in this case was explained, prejudice to the Minister was not established, and, therefore, the balance in this case favours the plaintiff. It follows that I would allow the appeal with costs to the plaintiff both of the appeal and in the Supreme Court.
Tags: adding parties to a lawsuit, amending pleadins, Amezcua v. Taylor, BC Negligence Law, delay, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims, prejudice, RCMP, Suing the Police, Suing the RCMP
