John Hall v. Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board et al.

Full Decision

Facts
On December 21, 2009, the defendant GM experienced a fire at their St. Catherine’s plant which led to a series of events resulting in the arrest of the plaintiff Hall, and a finding of not guilty at the criminal trial, followed by civil proceedings against GM, the Niagara Police Services Board and several of its police officers.

Briefly, after an internal investigation, GM advanced the theory that Hall, a security guard with GM who worked on the day of the fire, had inadvertently started the fire in an attempt to steal copper. When the matter was reported to the Niagara Police, every officer assigned to the case started their investigation by meeting with GM officials and hearing their theory of the case. Investigating officers never looked at other suspects and ultimately arrested Hall. The criminal trial resulted in a finding of not guilty.

Issues
The central issue in this case is whether the defendants engaged in maliciously prosecuting the plaintiff’s claim. In answering this question Justice Walters addresses the claims that the police were negligent in their investigation; that they did not have reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest; that they acted in a deliberate and unlawful manner with the intent to injure the plaintiff; and that as a result, the plaintiff was falsely arrested and his Charter rights were breached.

Findings
With regard to the claim of malicious prosecution, Justice Walters identified the real area of contention as being whether or not the police had reasonable and probable grounds to charge the plaintiff, and whether they acted with malice or improper purpose in doing so. The test for “reasonable and probable” is both subjective (the arresting officer must have subjectively reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest), and objective (these grounds must also be justifiable from the point of view of “any ordinary prudent and cautious man”).

The plaintiff argued that investigating officers accepted, without question, the evidence of GM regarding its theory of the case and failed to note obvious inconsistencies. The plaintiff further alleged that at most, police had a suspicion that the plaintiff may have been involved in the fire, but that mere suspicion is not enough to support a finding of reasonable and probable grounds.

The defence relied on the investigation conducted by GM and argued that there was strong circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff had both a motive and the opportunity to commit the crime, therefore justifying his arrest.

In summarizing his findings, Justice Walters found too many police investigation errors, biases and falsehoods to list, and rendered a firm indictment of the defendants and their blind reliance on GM’s theory of what transpired:

“The victim, GM, steered Magistrate to Hall. Magistrate never opened his mind to the possibility that there was no crime. Nor that there were other possible suspects. He had tunnel vision. He failed to consider that the witnesses he spoke to were tainted.”

Justice Walters found plenty of evidence to support a finding that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest given the lack of credibility of the main investigating officer:

“How else can one explain the discrepancies, exaggerations, inaccuracies, and an outright lie in Magistrate’s written reports and affidavits.”

However, for the tort of malicious prosecution to be proven, the plaintiff also has to show malice and ill intent on the part of the police. Again, Justice Walters found that the plaintiff met the steep burden of proof required. His Honour found that GM was invested in finding a culprit, and when they found circumstantial evidence possibly pointing to the plaintiff, they embraced it whole heartedly and shared it freely with the police. Unfortunately, the police were just as zealous in charging the plaintiff and going so far as to lie to the court in order to secure a conviction. The allegation of malicious prosecution was proven when Justice Walters found the main investigating officer tried to tailor his evidence to fit the GM theory of the case:

“… I am satisfied that by the time of trial the impetus to continue prosecution of this case was motivated by Magistrate’s wish to please GM and to convict Hall.”

Given these two findings, it is not surprising that the court also accepted the plaintiff’s claim for negligent investigation and misfeasance of public office. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for pain & suffering, special damages and loss of income.

As a result of police misconduct, the plaintiff, a security guard with GM for 24 years and holding an unblemished record, was fired from his job and had to declare bankruptcy. While he won both the criminal and civil trial, the plaintiff endured great hardship and this case stands as a stark reminder of the powers that police hold over citizens and how easily they can be abused.

Update: the case has been appealed and will be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 16, 2022.

Written by

Corina Bachmann is the principal of Bachmann Personal Injury Law. With offices in Simcoe, Lindsey and Toronto, Corina and her staff provide representation for Ontarians injured through the negligence of others.