Beardsley v. Ontario et al., (2001) 151 O.A.C. 324 (CA)

• Judge: Abella, Goudge and Simmons, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 24, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 151 O.A.C. 324 (CA);2001 CanLII 8621 (NS CA);2001 CanLII 8621 (ON CA);57 OR (3d) 1;[2001] OJ No 4574 (QL);151 OAC 324;17 CPC (5th) 94;52 WCB (2d) 45

Beardsley v. Ont. (2001), 151 O.A.C. 324 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.081

Gordon Beardsley (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP Provincial Constable Mark Radke, OPP Provincial Constable Dan Kunsken, and Bona Lamarche (defendants/respondents)

(Docket: C35452)

Indexed As: Beardsley v. Ontario et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Abella, Goudge and Simmons, JJ.A.

November 28, 2001.

Summary:

Beardsley sued the Province of Ontario and two police officers for damages for, inter alia, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The defendants applied to a motions judge for an order striking out the statement of claim. The motions judge granted the order - See 2000 O.T.C. 754. Beardsley appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted the appeal in part. The Court of Appeal set aside that portion of the order of the motions judge that was based on the expiry of a limitation period.

Crown - Topic 4432

Actions by and against Crown in right of province - Proceedings against the Crown Acts - Notice of action - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the form of notice required under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (Ont.) - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 206

Practice - Requirement of pleading expiry of limitation period - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the expiry of a limitation period must be pleaded - See paragraph 21.

Practice - Topic 3135

Applications and motions - Motions - Evidence - Rule 21.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.) prohibited the admission of evidence on a motion - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a motions judge erred in admitting a letter on a motion where the letter was not referred to in the statement of claim - See paragraphs 8 and 9.

Torts - Topic 5702

Conspiracy - General - Pleadings - Beardsley in a statement of claim alleged a conspiracy by police officers - A motions judge struck out the claim of conspiracy because the statement of claim failed to include material facts - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the motions judge - See paragraph 26.

Cases Noticed:

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1992), 40 C.P.C.(3d) 389 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mattick v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (2001), 139 O.A.C. 149; 52 O.R.(3d) 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

Nicely v. Basse (1991), 44 O.A.C. 147; 2 O.R.(3d) 612 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Pollakis v. Corner (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 691 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Vaillancourt v. Watson (1994), 69 O.A.C. 227; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 729 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. White, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 19 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-27, sect. 7(1) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Lawrence Greenspon, for the appellant;

D. Thomas H. Bell and Sonal Gandhi, for the Crown and Police respondents;

Michael A. Chambers, for the respondent Bona Lamarche.

This appeal was heard on October 24, 2001, by Abella, Goudge and Simmons, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on November 28, 2001.