Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643

• Judge: Watt, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 24, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2010 ONCA 643;(2010), 268 O.A.C. 153 (CA)

Pickard v. Police Services Bd. (2010), 268 O.A.C. 153 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.006

Scott Pickard (plaintiff (responding party/appellant)) v. London Police Services Board (defendant (moving party/respondent))

(M39097; C52213; 2010 ONCA 643)

Indexed As: Pickard v. London Police Services Board

Ontario Court of Appeal

Watt, J.A.

October 1, 2010.

Summary:

In December 1997, Pickard was convicted of trespassing. In April 1998, a summary conviction appeal judge quashed the conviction. In March 2003, Pickard discovered that the London Police Service records management system continued to show that he had been convicted of trespassing. In March 2009, Pickard sued the London Police Services Board, alleging malicious prosecution, slander and various infringements of his Charter rights. The Board moved to dismiss Pickard's action and strike the statement of claim on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The Ontario Superior Court allowed the motion, holding that the action was statute-barred and the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action. Pickard appealed. The Board moved for an order requiring Pickard to post security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $14,000.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Watt, J.A., allowed the motion and ordered Pickard to post security for costs of $8,000.

Practice - Topic 8208

Costs - Security for costs - Security for costs of an appeal - Grounds for - General - In December 1997, Pickard was convicted of trespassing - In April 1998, a summary conviction appeal judge quashed the conviction - In March 2003, Pickard discovered that the London Police Service records management system continued to show that he had been convicted of trespassing - In March 2009, Pickard sued the London Police Services Board, alleging malicious prosecution, slander and various infringements of his Charter rights - The Board moved to dismiss Pickard's action and strike the statement of claim on the basis that it was statute-barred - Little, J., allowed the motion, holding that the action was statute-barred and the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action - Pickard appealed - The Board moved for an order requiring Pickard to post security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $14,000 - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Watt, J.A., allowed the motion and ordered Pickard to post security for costs of $8,000 - There was good reason to believe that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious - Additionally, Pickard had insufficient assets to pay an award of costs - By his own admission, he was impecunious - For all intents and purposes, an order for security for costs would prevent Pickard's pursuit of the appeal - To deny meritless claims was not to curtail access to justice, rather to facilitate access to justice by making room for legitimate claims.

Cases Noticed:

Schmidt v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1995), 82 O.A.C. 233; 24 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

J.R. Caskey, Q.C., for the moving party;

Scott Pickard, in person.

This motion was heard in Chambers on August 24, 2010, by Watt, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on October 1, 2010.