We can now sue the Police- know your rights ppl before you lose them

BuckWild

Well-known member
For all of you found not guilty for stunting/racing etc...
Go sue them for all your costs and future costs for insurance increases.


http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2..._police_complaints_and_sue_police_forces.html

The right of citizens to sue the police without being hindered by a police force’s internal complaints process has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“It represents an important vindication of the right of the citizen to sue police,” Julian Falconer, one the lawyers who argued the case, said Friday.

The appellant, Wayne Penner, was watching his wife’s trial in 2003 in a provincial offences court in St. Catharines, Ont., when he got into a squabble with Niagara Regional Police officers, who arrested him.

He claimed the officers assaulted him and laid a complaint under the Police Services Act. A police adjudicator later dismissed the complaint, concluding the arrest had been proper.

Then he sued for unlawful arrest, use of unnecessary force during and after arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit was dismissed prior to trial.

That dismissal was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court, which cited a legal doctrine that prevents the relitigation of an issue previously decided by a court or tribunal. It ruled the adjudicator’s conclusions were legally binding.

On Friday, however, in a four-to-three decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It found the use of the civilian complaints process against complainants was “a serious affront to basic principles of fairness.”

Falconer called the decision a recognition by the court that the police discipline process in Ontario is set up to serve a police chief’s internal discipline needs.

“It would do a grave injustice to allow that internal process, completely controlled by the chief of police, to then serve as a means of shielding the chief of police and his officers from liability,” Falconer said.

Penner’s lawsuit can now go ahead, he said.

“The practical effect of this is to return to judges their ultimate authority as guardians and protector over the rights of citizens as it relates to police officers. Obviously Mr. Penner deserves to have his day in court and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that.”
 
Is it April 1st before 12 ???

This is awesome
 
This was a victim of police brutality. It's a step in the right direction but I wouldn't take this to mean that you can sue over a not guilty verdict in a HTA172 offence. It'd certainly be nice, though. Maybe someone more knowledgable can chime in.
 
Not new. It has been known for a long time that if you have a valid complaint against police, then you are best not to report it to the police and just go ahead with the lawsuit. This was first told to me by a lawyer more than 10 years ago.... The police complaint process is designed to run out the time you have to file legal action.... You don't have to make a police complaint in order to sue.
 
This was a victim of police brutality. It's a step in the right direction but I wouldn't take this to mean that you can sue over a not guilty verdict in a HTA172 offence. It'd certainly be nice, though. Maybe someone more knowledgable can chime in.

There has to be a first and his case opened the door to get things going.
If you are found not guilty in said court then how the hell can a Cop charge you and you pay all the fines upfront before you even get your day in court. That would subvert the court system and just let them do whatever without impunity.
So if said court finds you not guilty then it did not happen meaning you should get back your money and any damages you incurred.
They jumped the gun with the penalty before you had your day in court to be charged by the court.

You can't have it both ways and when you are wrong you plead a form of "ignorance" to negate your responsibility.
It can be avoided by going the the trial process and IF found guilty then apply fines.
We don't shoot people first then ask questions.
 
i think this needs to be moved to the LAWS/HTA thread so more people can read up on it
 
i think this needs to be moved to the LAWS/HTA thread so more people can read up on it

I sure would not hire you as my lawyer with your deductive skills.

Legal Section

  • Threads: 564
  • Posts: 13,196

Romper Room

  • Threads: 3,084
  • Posts: 127,932
 
Just curious if there is a thread for highlighting cases where riders have beaten the stunt-driving law in Ontario? It seems to have become pretty much a blanket that they use to cover everything from lunatics to those standing up for a second to scratch/stretch! Anyone have any success beating these charges? Any follow up/legal action afterwards?
 
Interesting case, will follow
 
Just curious if there is a thread for highlighting cases where riders have beaten the stunt-driving law in Ontario? It seems to have become pretty much a blanket that they use to cover everything from lunatics to those standing up for a second to scratch/stretch! Anyone have any success beating these charges? Any follow up/legal action afterwards?

I beat my stunt driving charge, but I did not know you can sue
 
I wonder, if you lose your livelihood and other things as a result of HTA 172 where nobody was victimized (except you), could you sue for milions? It'd be worth a try, I think.
 
The problem with issuing a proper challenge to HTA172 is that in order to actually have your case up for review before the SCC you're talking about YEARS of filings, court appearances and legal fees just for it to make its way through the system, and even then they may decline to hear the case at all. I personally STRONGLY believe that there is strong evidence in a move to repeal the law, but your problems are the following:

- Getting a not guilty verdict in court or getting a prosecutor to withdraw the charge
>Sidebar: I do believe you could issue a charter challenge against the law itself in traffic court, but JPs are not judges and are generally not well versed in the law, and you never know, the Attorney General for ON or Canada may choose to actually send representation to fight your challenge.
- Getting a GOOD and EXPERIENCED lawyer (who won't come cheap) on your side and to take your case
- Finding the money to retain your lawyer through the entire process. Challenging the constitutionality of a law is not an easy thing to do and it is NOT taken lightly by the courts. You will need to convince EVERY level that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down.
- Getting the SCC to hear your case based solely on its merits (that's where having an experienced and well-versed lawyer in this area of law will matter most).
- Getting the SCC to side with you (you need to convince the majority, not all of them though).

I would very conservatively estimate 50-60k to take it all the way. More or less depending on how much time your lawyer spends on prep and in court. The lawyers I know that I would talk to about this kind of thing charge in the $450-$700 per hour range. Some Junior/Senior partners at large firms are upwards of $900-1000 per hour. Thankfully they have associates and paralegals to assist with research and in the end save you some money, but god help you if there's a lot of court time.

One guy I was talking to about this is a Bay st. lawyer and motorsports enthusiast, he said he's considered doing something like this but he simply doesn't have the time or resources to do it for free.
 
Last edited:
I beat my stunt driving charge, but I did not know you can sue

So go back and sue them now. You have the expenses to show resulting from a wrongful conviction overturned by a Judge.
I don't foresee you having to do much here except show up state your damages resulting from X and the results of said court case.
What can the Prosecutions defense be? You are guilty, nope Judge already ruled on that.
They can't have it both ways. They wanted you to pay for your mistakes so how about them.
 
So go back and sue them now. You have the expenses to show resulting from a wrongful conviction overturned by a Judge.
I don't foresee you having to do much here except show up state your damages resulting from X and the results of said court case.
What can the Prosecutions defense be? You are guilty, nope Judge already ruled on that.
They can't have it both ways. They wanted you to pay for your mistakes so how about them.

gotta prove malicious prosecution first. good luck with that.
 
gotta prove malicious prosecution first. good luck with that.

I did not get all of that from the finding.
I would be arguing that you want want the bases of the legal system is supposed to ensure which is to correct a wrong and be made whole resulting from the other party's actions. In this case you were accused and fined THEN had a case for which a Judge found you not guilty therefore they have to repay those damages or make you whole again nothing less nothing more.
But for their actions were you punished therefore they have to correct their actions.

If someone does lose the first case then this would create a conflict in the two rulings because one is saying when their is a wrong use the courts to correct and the other is saying there is no accountability for wrongs.
Judges do not like to make themselves nor their peers look stupid.

If anything you can possibly get this law removed because if the Police and legal system are not accountable for their mistakes resulting from a law they put in place then citizens should not be held accountable either so it would only serve them avoiding this issue by removing or amending the law to only impose fines upon convictions which is how the rest of the system works.
I would love to see the expression on a Judge when a someone asks them "so why do we need Judges if the Police are now that on the side of the road".
 
Back
Top Bottom