SCHEDULE A. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Small Claims Court. -and- STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Transcription

1 SCHEDULE A ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Small Claims Court BETWEEN: WILLIAM TERRANCE THOMSON Plaintiff -and- TOWNSHIP OF MCNAB / BRAESIDE and CANADA INC. c.o.b. as MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS: (a) (b) Against both defendants, jointly and severally: i. general damages in the amount of $10,000.00, or an amount to be determined at trial; and ii. special damages in the amount of $300.00, representing the plaintiff's legal fees incurred as a result of the defendants actions; for vindication, compensation, deterrence, and loss of amenities, pursuant to the following causes of action: i. Trespass to land and breach of sections of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and /or section 49 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and breach section of the Corporation of the Township of McNab /Braeside Zoning By-law no ; ii. Breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and remedy re: same pursuant to section 24(1); and iii. Abuse of process. Against both defendants, jointly and severally, punitive damages in the amount of $15,

2 (c) (d) Against the defendant, the Township of McNab /Braeside, special damages in the amount of $ , representing a fine paid by the plaintiff and unjustly enjoyed as the proceeds of illegal activities committed by the defendant, the Township of McNab /Braeside, pursuant to the doctrine of unjust enrichment; The plaintiff agrees to waive any award in excess of $25, in order to maintain this action under the Rules of the Small Claims Court. (e) Pre-judgment interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.c.43, as amended; (f) (g) (h) THE PARTIES Post-judgment interest pursuant to s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act; Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and reasonable. 2. WILLIAM TERRANCE THOMSON [Mr. Thomson] is an aerospace welder who resides at 977 Mill Ridge Road, R.R. #2, Arnprior, Ontario. [Mr. Thomson's property]. Mr. Thomson's property has the legal description of "Part of Lot 8, Concession 8, McNab as in PIN (LT)". Mr. Thomson's property consists of a house and a series of fields, barns and various other out-buildings; all of which are set back from the road with access by way of a driveway. 3. The TOWNSHIP OF MCNAB / BRAESIDE [the Township] is a lower tier municipality located in Renfrew County, incorporated pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, with a head office located at 2508 Russett Drive, R.R. #2, Arnprior, Ontario. The Township has subcontracted its municipal by-law enforcement to a private corporation, registered as CANADA INC., and carrying on business as MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CANADA INC., c.o.b. as MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES [MLES], is a for profit corporation, engaged in the business of by-law enforcement services, with a head office located at 32 Plaunt Street North, Renfrew, Ontario. MLES provides by-law 2

3 services and enforcement to six municipalities in Renfrew and Lanark Counties, including the Towns of Arnprior, Carleton Place, Mississippi Mills and Renfrew, and Townships of McNab /Braeside, Horton and Whitewater Region. MLES is owned and operated by James McBain [Officer Mcbain], former police chief of the Town of Renfrew. ILLEGAL SEARCHES OF MR. THOMPSON'S PROPERTY 5. On June 22, 2012, at approximately 2:00 pm, Officer McBain, on behalf of the defendant MLES, and acting as a by-law enforcement officer for the defendant Township, attended Mr. Thompson's property and began an investigation into an alleged complaint about a party Mr. Thomson was planning to have the next day. 6. Immediately upon entering the property, Officer McBain began investigating Mr. Thomson by making observations and taking pictures of his property, structures and contents thereon. After entering Mr. Thomson's property, before proceeding to Mr. Thomson's home to find Mr. Thomson, Officer McBain exited his vehicle to make observations about the property and take photographs of the property. This entry onto Mr. Thomson's property was an illegal trespass and violation of Mr. Thomson's Charter rights. 7. After collecting the above described evidence, Officer McBain proceeded to Mr. Thomson's house and communicated with Mr. Thomson. Officer McBain advised Mr. Thomson that his party would contravene the Township's by-laws. 8. Mr. Thomson did not believe that having a party was an illegal activity. He therefore proceeded with his party on June 23, He had invited friends, acquaintances and neighbours. There was a live band and party goers were permitted to bring recreational vehicles in order to have a place to stay for the night if they happened to consume alcohol. Party goers 3

4 were given a homemade ticket in exchange for a $10.00 contribution designed to help offset the costs of the party (including the cost of the band). Contributions were completely voluntary and were only made by some people. 9. Approximately 150 people attended the party, almost all of whom were between the age of 25 and 50 years old. The party was meant to serve as a good time for Mr. Thomson's friends, acquaintances and neighbours. Notice of the party was spread by word of mouth and a Facebook invite sent to Facebook friends. There was never any advertising or other promotions about the party directed to the general public. 10. Expenses of the party amounted to approximately $1, Approximately $ was collected from party goers. The remainder of the costs of the party were borne by Mr. Thomson. 11. On June 23, 2012, at around 6:45 p.m., Officer McBain returned to Mr. Thompson's property with By-law Officer Tim Cloutier (an employee of MLES). From the road, the two officers observed a number of people entering the property, cars parked on the property, as well as some recreational vehicles. The two officers concluded that the party was going ahead as previously planned. 12. At that point, the two officers hatched a plan to covertly enter Mr. Thomson's property as part of an illegal, warrantless, undercover investigation. The officers elected to leave Officer McBain hiding at the road, while Officer Cloutier, dressed in plain-clothes, would enter the property to make observations and collect evidence. Due to the fact that Mr. Thomson met Officer McBain the previous day, it was decided to have Officer Cloutier enter the property to avoid detection of their undercover operation. 4

5 13. The Officers did in fact carry out their plan, and Officer Cloutier entered Mr. Thomson's property without Mr. Thomson's consent, knowledge and under false pretences (Officer Cloutier portrayed himself as a friend of a friend). 14. Once he was on the property, Officer Cloutier approached Joyce Rombouts. Ms. Rombouts is Mr. Thomson's girlfriend and was meeting people as they came onto the property. When asked who he was, Officer Cloutier did not identify himself as a By-law officer, and intentionally mislead Ms. Rombouts by claiming that he had heard about the party through a conversation with people invited to attend. Believing Officer Cloutier was a friend of a friend, she explained that they were accepting voluntary contributions of $10.00 in order to share some of the costs of the party, including the hiring of the band. At the location where Ms. Rombouts was meeting people, there was a sign which stated "donations: $10.00". Officer Cloutier gave $10.00, received a ticket, and then began to leave. Due to the fact that he was apparently leaving, Ms. Rombouts tried to give him his money back. Officer Cloutier insisted that he was coming back and told Ms. Rombouts to keep the money. 15. Later on in the evening of June 23, 2012, at around 9:30 p.m., Officers McBain and Cloutier returned to Mr. Thomson's property and hatched another plan to covertly enter Mr. Thomson's property as part of an illegal, warrantless, undercover investigation. 16. Once again, the plan was to leave Officer McBain at the road and have Officer Cloutier enter the property to make observations and collect evidence. This time they also made arrangements to be linked up by a radio communication device. Officer McBain instructed Officer Cloutier to enter the property, interact with people, take notes on people and vehicles, perform random searches for any perceived illegal activities (including any illegal alcohol and drug activities), and report back to Officer McBain every 20 minutes. 5

6 17. The Officers again carried out their plan, and Officer Cloutier again entered Mr. Thomson's property without Mr. Thomson's consent, knowledge and under false pretences. Over the coarse of approximately one hour, Officer Cloutier made three or four reports to Officer McBain about the party, and confirmed that he was gathering evidence. He allegedly took notes on the numbers of cars and people. He also unsuccessfully attempted to purchase alcohol in his pursuit to discover illegal alcohol or drug activity. Around 10:30, Officer McBain ordered Officer Cloutier off the property. At around 11:30 p.m., the officers left the area. 18. No noise complaint was ever received in relation to the party. 19. While covertly attending the party, Officer Cloutier upset a number of Mr. Thomson's friends on account of his odd behaviour; especially because no one seemed to know who he was, his snooping around and his aggressive efforts to buy alcohol. 20. At no time on June 23, 2012, did either Officer McBain or Officer Cloutier identify themselves as By-law officers to anyone at Mr. Thomson's property, nor did they tell anyone at the property that they were carrying out an investigation. Instead, they deliberately concealed their identities and reasons for being there. 21. At no time did the defendants seek or obtain a search warrant to carry out their investigation. 22. On or around July 11, 2012, a summons was served on Mr. Thomson, charging him with the following: a. Using the property as a recreational vehicle campground contrary to the uses permitted in a Rural Zone pursuant to section 17.1 of Zoning By-law of the Township of McNab/Braeside, being a by-law passed pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, as amended, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section of By-law of the Township of McNab/Braeside; and 6

7 b. Using the property as a commercial concert venue with a live band contrary to the uses permitted in a Rural Zone pursuant to section 17.1 of Zoning By-law of the Township of McNab/Braeside, being a by-law passed pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, as amended, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section of By-law of the Township of McNab/Braeside 23. On November 23, 2012, a trial was held before Justice of the Pease R. Sculthorpe respecting the charges. During his testimony, Officer McBain admitted that a party is not actually prohibited pursuant to the Township's By-laws. During his testimony, Officer Cloutier adamantly defended his deception, lies and their conduct in carrying their "undercover" operation. When asked why he lied, he answered "everybody lies" and explained that it is part of "being undercover". 24. J.P Sculthorpe concluded that the case turned on the fact that tickets were sold and, despite no evidence that Mr. Thomson profited anything from his party, Mr. Thomson was convicted of operating a "commercial concert venue". The other charge was dismissed. 25. The ticket obtained by Officer Cloutier was the product of an illegal investigation. In his decision, J.P Sculthorpe repeatedly described the investigation as a "cloak and dagger operation". 26. Charter issues and the illegality of the defendants searches of Mr. Thomson's property were not raised at trial. 27. As a result of his conviction, Mr. Thomson was ordered to pay a fine of $ This money was then transferred to the defendant Township, pursuant to section 433 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and subsequently unjustly enjoyed by the Township as proceeds of an illegal investigation. 7

8 28. Mr. Thomson also incurred $ in legal fees associated with the trial of the matter. Due to the fact that the charges turned on the product of an illegal investigation, Mr. Thomson would not have suffered such damages but for the illegal conduct of the defendants. 29. Mr. Thomson is a member of the Ontario Landowner's Association [OLA], an organization committed to advocating for private property rights and freedom from state intrusion onto private property. At all material times, Mr. Thomson had a sign posted on his property stating "Stop: This Land is our Land; Back Off Government". This sign is a well known marker in rural Ontario indicating that the owner is member of the OLA, that the owner does not invite entry onto his property by state agents, and that the owner possesses a heightened expectation of privacy respecting his property. The defendants either knew or ought to have known the significance of the OLA sign and Mr. Thomson's expectation of privacy at time they illegally entered Mr. Thomson's property on June 22 & 23, The defendants' entries upon Mr. Thomson's property on June 22 & 23, 2012 demonstrated reckless and egregiously overzealous investigation practices on behalf of the defendants. In addition to trespassing, the officers' attempts to investigate illegal alcohol and drug activities (which were completely unfounded) demonstrated a bizarre and contemptible effort to carry out duties which are clearly outside their jurisdiction and reserved for provincial police. Such conduct is tantamount to vigilantism. The defendants behaved like lawless mavericks, wilfully or recklessly ignorant of the restraints on their powers and purporting to exercise powers they did not possess, all while demonstrating a total lack of regard for Mr. Thomson's rights and his express expectation of privacy. 31. The defendants' entries upon Mr. Thomson's property on June 22 & 23, 2012 were illegal, an abuse of process, constituted trespassing, and seriously violated Mr. Thomson's Charter 8

9 rights. Ignorance of Charter standards cannot be equated with good faith. The subject entries also failed to comply with sections of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and /or section 49 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and breached section of the Corporation of the Township of McNab /Braeside Zoning By-law no The defendants' illegal entries upon Mr. Thomson's property on June 22 & 23, 2012 deprived Mr. Thomson of amenities, including his right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of his property. The illegal entries also caused him to experience fear, stress, anxiety, embarrassment in the eyes of his friends, and a sense of violation of the security of his home and property. The damages claimed are necessary to compensate Mr. Thomson for such losses. 33. The damages claimed also are necessary to compensate Mr. Thomson for the special damages he suffered as a result of the defendants' actions; including his legal fees and the fine unjustly enjoyed by the defendant Township. Such damages would not have been suffered but for the illegal conduct of the defendants. 34. The damages claimed are also necessary to serve as vindication for the Charter violations suffered by Mr. Thomson. 35. The damages claimed are also necessary to deter similar Charter-breaching conduct by the defendants, as well as other similar law-enforcement companies, by-law officers and municipal governments. 36. The defendants' conduct was outrageous, egregious and highly reprehensible to a degree which departs from the ordinary standards of decent behaviour expected from municipal officials. The general and special damages being claimed are inadequate to sufficiently deter the conduct of the defendants, and so punitive damages are necessary and rationally required. 9

10 37. The plaintiff relies on the provisions of: a. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; b. Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21; c. Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25; d. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13; and e. The Corporation of the Township of McNab /Braeside Zoning By-law no The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario. DATED: December 3, 2013 GREEN & ASSOCIATES Barristers & Solicitors Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5V5 Kurtis R. Andrews (LSUC # 57974K) Tel: Fax: krandrews@greenandassociates.ca Solicitors for the plaintiff 10

11 WILLIAM TERRANCE THOMSON -and- TOWNSHIP OF MCNAB / BRAESIDE et. al. Plaintiff Defendants ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Small Claims Court PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO STATEMENT OF CLAIM GREEN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES Barristers & Solicitors Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5V5 Kurtis R. Andrews (LSUC # 57974K) Tel: Fax: krandrews@greenandassociates,ca Solicitors for the plaintiff