Cr -18-20 SY 23a/- OPO Court File No... ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE %, DANIEL KNOX, HARRISON KNOX, IERRY COLE, and DANIEL CAMPBELL Plaintiffs and CHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO “(MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES), CONSTABLE LUIGI BRUNI, CONSTABLE MARIO POSTERARO, CONSTABLE PETER VAN DEN DIEPSTRATEN, CONSTABLE KEITH NICOLE, and SERGEANT KEN SPAHR Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANTS A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you m™must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $5,000 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. Ifyou believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff's claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court. TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if it has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action was commenced unless otherwise ordered by the court. Date 2? Mccemben, 2ert Issued by Obrint Local registrar FAMLINVERSITY AVE. RG AVE. UNIVEROBY Address of court office me o0R 16 Erace ‘TORORTO, ONFABD = TORONTO, ONTARD TO: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Crown Law Office — Civil 8" Floor 720 Bay Street ‘Toronto ON M7A 289 TO: Constable Luigi Bruni Constable Keith Nicolle Constable Mario Posteraro Constable Peter Van Den Diepstraten Sergeant Ken Spahr clo Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Crown Law Office — Civil 8th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto ON M7A 289CLAIM 1. THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM: (@) General damages in the amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) for negligence, assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, trespass to property, misfeasance of public office, and malicious breach of public duty; () In addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000) for breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”); (©) __Inaddition, and/or in the altemative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000); (@ Special damages for the Plaintiffs’ loss of time, out-of-pocket expenses, and interruption of business and routine of life; (©) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, RS.0. 1990, c. C.43, as amended; (Costs in this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and (g) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. THE PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff Daniel Knox (“Knox”) is 60 years old and resides in the City of Sault Ste, Marie, Ontario. Knox is the owner of the company Treemen & A Chainsaw. 3. The Plaintiff Harrison Knox (“Harrison”) is 27 years old and resides in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Harrison is Knox’s son.4. The Plaintiff Sherry Cole (“Sherry”) is 39 years old and resides in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Sherry is Knox’s daughter. 5. ‘The Plaintiff Daniel Campbell (“Daniel”) is 20 years old and resides in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Daniel is Sherry’s son and the grandson of Knox. 6. The Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (“the Crown”) is liable in law for the conduct of Crown servants and agents pursuant to s. 5 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.27 (Proceedings Against the Crown Act). 7. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is the provincial police force for Ontario pursuant to the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.15 (“Police Services Act”). The Crown is liable for the conduct of OPP officers pursuant to s. 50 (1) of the Police Services Act, and specifically the Crown is liable for the conduct of the named Defendant police officers. 8. The Defendants Constable Luigi Bruni, badge #10674 (“Constable Bruni”), Constable Keith Nicolle, badge #11012 (“Constable Nicolle”), Constable Mario Posteraro, badge #9995 (“Constable Posteraro”), Constable Peter Van Den Diepstraten, badge# 8800 (“Constable Van Den Diepstraten”), and Sergeant Ken Spahr, badge #8249 (“Sergeant Spahr”), was at all material times employed as police officers with the OPP. THE CLAIM 9. On July 11, 2014 at approximately 12:30 P.M. a red truck (the “red truck”) driven by Calvin Lynn (“Lynn”) was travelling on Highway 17 in Aweres Township, Ontario. Daniel was a passenger in the red truck. Kenneth Knox (“Kenneth”) and Harrison were travelling in small dump truck (the “dump truck”) on the same road up ahead of the red truck. Both vehicles are owned by Knox through his company Treemen & A Chainsaw and the occupants were employees of the company (collectively the “employees”).10. 12. 13. 14. Cindy Wagner (“Wagner”) and Wendy Grenier (“Gemnier”) were travelling together in a vehicle and they observed the red truck move over to the left lane and pass another vehicle. Lynn misjudged the situation and an oncoming vehicle had to move off the road to avoid a collision. Wagner called the police. A short while later Wagner and Grenier observed the red truck and the dump truck stopped just off the highway. The employees were now all in the red truck, which was parked immediately adjacent to the dump truck. Wagner and Grenier parked in front of the red truck and blocked it from moving forward. Wagner and Gernier were enraged and they berated Lynn for his driving. Wagner and Gemier approached 2 men, John Vanderloo Sr. (“Vanderloo Sr.”) and John Vanderloo Jr. (“Vanderloo Jr.”) and persuaded them to drive their vehicle behind the red truck. ‘Together they barricaded and detained the 4 employees. ‘The employees felt threatened and they were being held against their will. Harrison got out of the red truck and attempted to negotiate, first with Wagner and Gemier and then with the Vanderloos. Harrison had not witnessed Lynn’s driving. Vanderloo Sr. got out of his vehicle and grabbed hold of Harrison and assaulted him. The other employees then exited the red truck and came to assist Harrison, Vanderloo Jr. then assaulted Lynn by putting him in a headlock. One of the employees moved the dump truck so that the red truck had an opening to pull away. The employees went back to the red truck and attempted again to leave. ‘They moved into the empty space but the Vanderloos backed up and rammed into the side of the red truck causing considerable damage including a punctured tire. Together, Wagner, Gemier, Vanderloo Sr. and Vanderloo Jr. engaged in vigilantism. They did not have lawful authority to detain or arrest the employees nor did they have lawful authority to use force for this purpose. Their unlawful conduct escalated into a physical confrontation during which Lynn and Harrison were assaulted and the red truck was rammed and damaged.1s. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Harrison called Knox on the phone and explained what had happened. Knox called the local OPP detachment and requested police assistance. By that time, police were already en route to the scene. Knox drove to the scene with Sherry. They brought a Jack and a tire to fix the red truck. Constable Nicolle was the first police officer to arrive. He spoke to Wagner briefly and then, without further investigation, he arrested Lynn for the offence of dangerous driving. Constable Posteraro arrived at the scene and he spoke briefly with Vandetloo Sr. Without further investigation, Constable Posteraro arrested Harrison for assault and dangerous driving. Harrison was arrested in the absence of reasonable grounds. The arrest was unlawful. Harrison was falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned. Constable Posteraro handcuffed Harrison and placed him in the back of a police cruiser. Constable Posteraro injured Harrison when he deliberately and excessively tightened the hand cuffs in a manner that was painful and unnecessary. Constable Posteraro closed all the doors and windows of the police cruiser. It was hot and sunny that day and the temperature inside the vehicle rose to a point where Harrison began to sweat profusely and he had difficulty breathing. Constable Posteraro endangered the safety of Harrison. Knox and Sherry arrived at the scene. They drove up to the two company vehicles, parked, and exited their vehicle. They observed Harrison in the back of a police cruiser. Sherry took photographs with her phone to document the collision and the damage to the vehicles. Knox went to speak to Harrison. The windows were not ‘open so Knox opened the back door of the police vehicle. When he opened the door Knox observed that is was extremely hot inside the vehicle.24. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. Constable Nicolle shouted at Knox to get away from the police vehicle. Knox complied. Harrison remained seated in the vehicle. Constable Nicolle approached Knox and told him that he was under arrest and to get on the ground. Knox was arrested for obstructing police. He did not obstruct police. Knox was arrested in the absence of reasonable grounds and the arrest was unlawful. Knox tried to step away from Constable Nicolle and he passively resisted the arrest. Knox acted within his rights to resist an unlawful arrest. His resistance was minimal and reasonable in the circumstances. Knox protested against his unlawful arrest and questioned police as to why he was being arrested. Constable Posteraro came over and together the two officers used force to subdue Knox. Constable Posteraro shot Knox in the back with a Conducted Energy Weapon (“taser”) and Knox fell to the ground. When Knox tried to stand up, Constable Posteraro tasered him a second time. Considering the circumstances, the use of force by police to arrest Knox was unnecessary and excessive. Knox was subjected to an assault and battery. Sherry had remained near her father and she recorded the events using her cell phone. Sherry tried to deescalate. She observed the police arrest her father and then taser him. Sherry gave Constable Posteraro a quick shove when he began to Taser her father for the second time. Sherry acted lawfully to prevent the further use of the taser against Knox. Her conduct was reasonable, necessary, and for the lawful purpose of defending Knox against excessive use of force by police. Constable Bruni arrived at the scene. Constable Bruni assisted Posteraro and Nicolle with the unlawful arrest of Knox and together they took Knox to a police vehicle. Just outside the police cruiser Constable Bruni delivered numerous unnecessary and gratuitous kicks to Knox’s leg. These kicks were excessive, unlawful, and a further assault and battery by police against Knox. Knox was placed in the back seat of the police cruiser.28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34, Knox was forced to take a breathalyzer test. Knox complied under duress and the breathalyzer registered a zero reading. The breathalyzer test amounted to a search in law. ‘The search was unlawful and conducted in the absence of reasonable grounds. The search was unnecessary and done for a malicious purpose. ‘The real reason for conducting the breathalyzer test was to humiliate Knox. The breathalyzer test was an unreasonable search and seizure, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. Constable Van Den Deipstraten arrived at the scene. He exited his police vehicle and when observed the door of the red truck to be open he aggressively kicked it so that it slammed shut. This manoeuvre was dangerous and unnecessary. Constable Van Den Deipstraten arrested Sherry for obstructing police. Sherry was grabbed, pushed around, and then bent over the hood of a police cruiser by Van Den Deipstraten, Posteraro, and Nicolle. She was handcuffed to the back. The handcuffs were excessively tight and Sherry was injured. Sherry’s phone was knocked out of her hand during her arrest. One of the Defendant police officers then deliberately and maliciously stepped on the phone and destroyed it. This officer destroyed material evidence and acted with the intention of doing so. OPP officers trespassed against Sherry’s property when they knocked her phone out of her hand and then stepped on it. Daniel had observed the collision and the subsequent arrests. He used his phone to take photographs and document the collision. He attempted to give police a statement at the scene but no officer would take his statement. Daniel travelled to the OPP station in St. Sault Marie and presented himself as a witness. At the station Daniel was detained and held in a room. Officers seized his cell phone, threatened to arrest him, and then deleted all photographs showing the scene of the collision. Defendant OPP officers who deleted Daniel's photographs did so with a malicious purpose — to obstruct justice. ‘These officers knew that the photographs were 835. 36. 37. 38. 39. material and relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding. With this knowledge the officers deliberately destroyed the evidence, The officers knew that doing so would cause prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Officers were misfeasant in public office and they acted with malice in breaching their public duties. Daniel’s phone was seized and searched in absence of lawful authority. Daniel did not consent to the search or seizure. The search and seizure was unreasonable, contrary to s, 8 of the Charter. OPP officers trespassed against Daniel’s property when they destroyed the photographs on his phone. ‘The detention of Daniel was unlawful and arbitrary, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter. Daniel was falsely imprisoned. Sherry was released after approximately one hour at the OPP station. Daniel was detained for approximately one hour. Knox and Harrison were released after approximately 5 hours. Knox, Sherry, and Harrison signed Undertakings and had to promise to appear in court. Immediately after the incident OPP officers maliciously and without good reason broadcast a media release which identified the Plaintiffs and listed the false charges laid against them. OPP officers deliberately sought to harm the reputation of the Plaintiffs. The investigation against the Plaintiffs was myopic and biased. OPP officers who investigated the Plaintiffs failed to meet the standard of care required of reasonable and prudent police officers. The Defendant police officers were negligent and/or acted with malice in the course of their duties. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, some of the particulars of the negligence and/or malice in the investigation include:4. @ ) © @ © © () ) @ oO Arresting or threatening to arrest the Plaintiffs in the absence of lawful authority; Arresting Lynn and Harrison prior to conducting any reasonable investigation; Failing to properly document the investigation in police records and with photographs. The Defendant officers took only photographs showing damage to the red truck; Failing to consider or investigate that Harrison and Daniel were the victims of criminal offences - that they were subjected to an unlawful citizens arrest, Harrison was assaulted, and then their vehicle was rammed; Using excessive force; Using a taser in circumstances where the use of this weapon was excessive; Placing Harrison in a sealed vehicle where he suffered from exposure to extreme heat; Failing to collect statements and contact information from material witnesses including numerous bystanders that would have witnessed the alleged offences; Threatening and intimidating witnesses; and Deliberately destroying relevant and material evidence. At all material times, Sgt. Spahr was the supervising officer of the other Defendant police officers. He attended at the scene of the collision and he was also present at the OPP station. Sgt. Spahr failed to reasonably exercise his supervisory duties in regards to the investigation of the Plaintiffs and he was thereby negligent. 1042. 43. DAMAGES 45, The Plaintiffs rights to liberty and security were violated, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter. ‘The Plaintiffs had to retain counsel and attend court. On October 20, 2014 all charges were withdrawn against the Plaintiffs at the request of the Crown. Harrison suffered an injury to his wrist as a result of the handcuffs being applied in an abusive and excessive manner. This injury has interfered with his employment causing lost income including future income. The Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including: (@) emotional and mental distress; (b) damages for psychological injury; (©) damages for physical injury; (@) loss of reputation; (©) damages for humiliation and indignity; (damages for loss of liberty; (g) loss of enjoyment of life; (b) loss of income; (i) __ loss of time and routine of life; @) special damages;(K) aggravated damages for the insulting, high handed, m: conduct; and () punitive damages for the Defendants’ abuse of authority for a malicious purpose with wilful and/or grossly negligent disregard of the Plaintiffs? rights. REMEDY SOUGHT 46. — The Plaintiffs claim damages in respect of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. 47. The Plaintiffs claim damages and other remedies pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter for the breach of their rights under ss. 7, 8, and 9. 48. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried in Toronto. Dated: 22 Meewnler 20 Davin Charney Barrister and Solicitor 209-3050 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4N 2K4 Tel: 647-346-9247 Fax: 855-867-7301 Lawyer forthe PlaintiffDANIEL KNOX et al and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO et al Plaintifts Defendants fL~ 3) - LIPO Court fle no: ane 2S POS YPIY- ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT TORONTO STATEMENT OF CLAIM DAVIN CHARNEY 209-3050 YONGE STREET SERVICE OF A - ADMITTED THIS: Ye or Wehualae” Hows TORONTO, ONTARIO MAN 2K4 Crown Law Office (Chil Law) MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PHONE: 64746-9247 FORO . : : 855-867. rashid rnbithrme. Se. EMAIL: DAVIN@CHARNEYLAW.CA TORONTO, ONTARIO M7A 289 LSUC# 55780S RCP-E 4C (July 1, 2007)