Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 191: Line 191:
'''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 ''[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).  


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).


{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}