Difference between revisions of "Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:'''NOTE:''' Even if the 60 day limitation period has expired, a complainant should still send a notice letter to the Clerk. If the municipality was provided with notice shortly after the 60 day period expired, it will be more difficult for them to argue that they were prejudiced by the failure to send the notice letter within 60 days. | :'''NOTE:''' Even if the 60 day limitation period has expired, a complainant should still send a notice letter to the Clerk. If the municipality was provided with notice shortly after the 60 day period expired, it will be more difficult for them to argue that they were prejudiced by the failure to send the notice letter within 60 days. | ||
'''NOTE:''' If a municipal government or Minister of Justice is willing to accept liability on behalf of its officers where liability is proven, they may ask that the individual officers’ names to be removed from the lawsuit. While there may be reasons to keep the individual officers on the lawsuit, if the court finds they were left on unnecessarily, costs may be awarded against the complainant. | :'''NOTE:''' If a municipal government or Minister of Justice is willing to accept liability on behalf of its officers where liability is proven, they may ask that the individual officers’ names to be removed from the lawsuit. While there may be reasons to keep the individual officers on the lawsuit, if the court finds they were left on unnecessarily, costs may be awarded against the complainant. | ||
Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, subsection 21(3)(a) provides that this defence does not apply if the police officer has “been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct”. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc27/2010scc27.html?autocompleteStr=Ward%20v%20Vancouver%20(City)%2C%202010%20SCC%2027&autocompletePos=1 Vancouver (City) v Ward]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a). | Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, subsection 21(3)(a) provides that this defence does not apply if the police officer has “been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct”. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc27/2010scc27.html?autocompleteStr=Ward%20v%20Vancouver%20(City)%2C%202010%20SCC%2027&autocompletePos=1 Vancouver (City) v Ward]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a). | ||