5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V) (view source)
Revision as of 02:07, 7 August 2020
, 02:07, 7 August 2020→2. Civil Proceedings
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
=== 2. Civil Proceedings === | === 2. Civil Proceedings === | ||
Individuals may be able to sue police officers civilly, even when they have also made a complaint. Section 179 of the BC ''Police Act'' specifically states that the complaint proceedings outlined above do not preclude a citizen from taking, or continuing, civil or criminal proceedings against an RCMP officer or a municipal constable for misconduct. Outside of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in ''Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)'', 2013 SCC 19, that the result of the police complaint process calls for a case-by-case review of the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair or unjust to prevent further litigation. | Individuals may be able to sue police officers civilly, even when they have also made a complaint. Section 179 of the BC ''Police Act'' specifically states that the complaint proceedings outlined above do not preclude a citizen from taking, or continuing, civil or criminal proceedings against an RCMP officer or a municipal constable for misconduct. Outside of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc19/2013scc19.html?resultIndex=1 Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)]'', 2013 SCC 19, that the result of the police complaint process calls for a case-by-case review of the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair or unjust to prevent further litigation. | ||
Typical actions that are launched against peace officers include tort actions in assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. This could be helpful to individuals who have been mistreated or suffered monetary loss because of police misconduct. These actions may now be brought in Small Claims Court. | Typical actions that are launched against peace officers include tort actions in assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. This could be helpful to individuals who have been mistreated or suffered monetary loss because of police misconduct. These actions may now be brought in Small Claims Court. | ||
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.” | EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.” | ||
If the complaint is against a municipal police force, ''special limitation periods'' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. | ''NOTE:''' If the complaint is against a municipal police force, ''special limitation periods'' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca61/2002bcca61.html?resultIndex=1 Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. | ||
'''NOTE:''' Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter. | '''NOTE:''' Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter. | ||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
'''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, paragraph 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 ''Ward v | Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, paragraph 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 Ward v Vancouver (City)]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a). | ||
For detailed step-by-step information on suing the police (as well as private security guards), please see David Eby & Emily Rix, ''How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court'' (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2007). | For detailed step-by-step information on suing the police (as well as private security guards), please see David Eby & Emily Rix, ''How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court'' (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2007). | ||