Sauve v. Canada et al., (2015) 473 F.T.R. 304 (FC)

• Judge: Barnes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 16, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 473 F.T.R. 304 (FC);2015 FC 66

Sauve v. Can. (2015), 473 F.T.R. 304 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.001

Gary Sauve (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, Marc Franche (RCMP) and Larry Tremblay (RCMP)

(T-1752-06; 2015 FC 66)

Indexed As: Sauve v. Canada et al.

Federal Court

Barnes, J.

January 16, 2015.

Summary:

Sauve, a veteran R.C.M.P. officer, was involved in a paternity proceeding where a woman alleged that he fathered her child. Sauve challenged a court order that he provide a DNA sample. The order was upheld on appeal. Sauve sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Sauve wrote a letter to the SCC threatening harm to himself and the woman and her lawyer for what he considered to be harassment. Sauve was summoned to his detachment by his superior officer under the pretext of overtime work. The real purpose was to determine whether Sauve was a threat to himself and the two threatened persons. Following a discussion concerning the content of the letter, Sauve surrendered his firearm upon request and was ordered to remain in the office until the Ottawa Police Service arrived two hours later to conduct a criminal investigation. Sauve was subsequently convicted on two counts of criminal harassment and sentenced to the time he had served on remand awaiting trial (five months). Sauve spent those five months in protective custody because of concern for his safety. While incarcerated, two plain clothes R.C.M.P. officers arrived to discuss with Sauve his upcoming appearance as a witness in a narcotics matter. Sauve sued the federal Crown and the R.C.M.P. officers for damages for stress, anxiety, emotional trauma, etc., allegedly suffered by him due to his unlawful detention at the detachment and the negligence in sending R.C.M.P. officers to his cell to talk with him about his upcoming need to testify. The negligence allegedly "outed" Sauve as an R.C.M.P. officer to correctional guards and other inmates, thereby placing him at risk.

The Federal Court dismissed the action. There was no unlawful detention at the detachment and no negligence.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - Sauve, a veteran R.C.M.P. officer, was involved in a paternity proceeding where a woman alleged that he fathered her child - Sauve challenged a court order that he provide a DNA sample - The order was upheld on appeal - Sauve sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) - Sauve wrote a letter to the SCC threatening harm to himself and the woman and her lawyer for what he considered to be harassment - Sauve was summoned to his detachment by his superior officer under the pretext of overtime work - The real purpose was to determine whether Sauve was a threat to himself and the two threatened persons - Following a discussion concerning the content of the letter, Sauve surrendered his firearm upon request and was ordered to remain in the office until the Ottawa Police Service arrived two hours later to conduct a criminal investigation - Sauve was subsequently convicted on two counts of criminal harassment and sentenced to the time spent on remand awaiting trial (five months) - Sauve spent those five months in protective custody because of concern for his safety - While incarcerated, two plain clothes R.C.M.P. officers arrived to discuss with Sauve his upcoming appearance as a witness in a narcotics matter - Sauve sued the federal Crown and the R.C.M.P. officers for damages for stress, anxiety, emotional trauma, etc., allegedly suffered by him due to his unlawful detention at the detachment and the negligence in sending R.C.M.P. officers to his cell to talk with him about his upcoming need to testify - The negligence allegedly "outed" Sauve as an R.C.M.P. officer to correctional guards and other inmates, thereby placing him at risk - The Federal Court dismissed the action - Sauve was not unlawfully detained at the detachment - In the face of the unambiguous threats in the letter, the superior officer had the authority under s. 40 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to investigate in the interests of public safety - Sauve acquiesced in the order to remain at the detachment and could not now claim that he was detained - Even if Sauve was briefly detained beyond the time authorized by the Act and Regulations, a brief preventative or investigative detention was justified at common law and s. 18 of the Act - Further, the manner of the visit to Sauve's cell to discuss his need to testify was not negligent - Guards knew he was an R.C.M.P. officer, there was no evidence that he was "outed" and, even if he was, there was no evidence (only speculation) of any harm or compensable injury - See paragraphs 9 to 42.

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Police - Topic 4065

Internal organization - Discipline of members - Investigation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Police - Topic 5021

Actions against police - Negligence - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Torts - Topic 9154

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Police officers and authorities - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2007), 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314; 2007 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 27].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al. (2007), 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Cheryl Letourneau, for the plaintiff;

Helene Robertson and Patrick Bendin, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Bertschi Orth, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This action was heard on December 1-5, 2014, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Barnes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 16, 2015.