Caratozzolo v. Murdock, Ewatski and Edmonton (City), (1982) 47 A.R. 394 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 07, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 47 A.R. 394 (QBM)

Caratozzolo v. Murdock (1982), 47 A.R. 394 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Caratozzolo v. Murdock, Ewatski and City of Edmonton

(8103-22506)

Indexed As: Caratozzolo v. Murdock, Ewatski and Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Quinn, Master in Chambers

January 7, 1982.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action against two Edmonton policemen and the City of Edmonton for damages after he was allegedly assaulted by the policemen. The City applied to have its name struck from the pleadings on the ground that the policemen were not employees, servants or agents of the City. As an alternative to having the City struck off the pleadings, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to join the City for the purposes of examination for discovery only.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the City's application and refused the plaintiff leave to amend.

Police - Topic 4006

Internal organization - Status or relation of police officer - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a municipal police officer is not an employee, servant or agent of the municipality and therefore the municipality could not be joined as a defendant in an action against police officers for damages for assault - See paragraphs 1 to 5.

Practice - Topic 668

Parties - Adding or substituting defendants - For purposes of discovery - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that in an action against two municipal police officers the municipality could not be joined as a defendant for the purposes of examination for discovery only - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

McCleave v. City of Moncton, 32 S.C.R. 106, appld. [para. 3].

Pon Yin v. City of Edmonton, Hill and Kroning, 8 W.W.R. 809, appld. [para. 3].

Bowles v. City of Winnipeg, [1919] 1 W.W.R. 198, appld. [para. 3].

Bruton v. Regina City Policemen's Association Local No. 155, [1945] 2 W.W.R. 273; [1945] 3 D.L.R. 437, appld. [para. 3].

Buttrick v. City of Lowell, 1 Allen 172 (Mass.), appld. [para. 4].

Hunter v. Eck, Brown. Poss et al. (1976), 1 A.R. 524; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 318, affd. 8 A.R. 508, consd. [para. 5].

Attorney General and the Minister for Justice v. Dublin United Tramways Company (1846) Limited, [1939] I.R. 591, dist. [para. 5].

Kennerley v. Hextall, 3 W.W.R. 699, consd. [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 13, pp. 18-19, para. 18 [para. 6].

Counsel:

J. Hughes, for the City of Edmonton;

Gordon S.D. Wright, for the plaintiff;

G. Linz for B. Murdock and J. Ewatski.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Master in Chambers Quinn of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on January 7, 1982: