Stewart v. Keating, (2015) 473 Sask.R. 108 (QB)

Judge:Gabrielson, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:April 15, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:(2015), 473 Sask.R. 108 (QB);2015 SKQB 108
 
FREE EXCERPT

Stewart v. Keating (2015), 473 Sask.R. 108 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.049

Jarvis Stewart (plaintiff) v. Gordon James Keating (defendant)

(2013 QBG No. 1023; 2015 SKQB 108)

Indexed As: Stewart v. Keating

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Gabrielson, J.

April 15, 2015.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Stewart guilty of wilfully obstructing police officer Keating in the lawful performance of his duties during a traffic stop. Stewart received an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that he had been held in custody longer than necessary. Stewart sued Keating for damages of $400,000 pursuant to various causes of action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - Following a criminal trial, Stewart was found guilty of wilfully obstructing police officer Keating in the lawful execution of his duties during a traffic stop - He received an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that he had been held in custody longer than necessary - Stewart sued Keating for damages of $400,000 pursuant to various causes of action - He claimed that Keating was not entitled to arrest him and that all of Keating's actions thereafter were unlawful - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - It would be an abuse of process to consider the submission that the traffic stop was illegal because the stop took place in a private parking lot - In any event, Keating had observed Stewart operating his vehicle on a public street prior to stopping it in the parking lot - The Court also dismissed the claims for false arrest (based on the trial judge's finding of guilt in respect to the obstruction charge) and false imprisonment (Stewart was held in detention pursuant to the actions of a detention officer who was not a party to this action) - Section 10(3) of the Police Act prevented the claims in negligence and the intentional infliction of mental suffering, as Keating's actions were done in good faith and in carrying out his duties.

Police - Topic 5026

Actions against police - Negligence - During custody of person - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Police - Topic 5041

Actions against police - For false arrest - General - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Police - Topic 5061

Actions against police - For false imprisonment - General - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Police - Topic 5281

Actions against police - Defences - General - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Torts - Topic 6254

Abuse of legal procedure - Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lux (L.) (2012), 405 Sask.R. 214; 563 W.A.C. 214; 295 C.C.C.(3d) 236; 2012 SKCA 129, refd to. [para. 7].

McIver v. Power, 1998 CanLII 4858 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Maxwell, 2012 ONCJ 722, refd to. [para. 7].

Mabrook et al. v. Toronto (City), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 6515; 2013 ONSC 6515, refd to. [para. 7].

Frey v. Fedoruk, [1950] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Simpson (D.) (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 110; 365 A.P.R. 110; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Dunham v. Dunham (1894), 57 Ill. App. 475, affd. (1896), 162 Ill. 589, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Affleck (A.) (2010), 293 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 928 A.P.R. 311; 2010 NSPC 51, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mertins (P.) (2012), 410 Sask.R. 238; 2012 SKPC 183, affd. (2013), 424 Sask.R. 267; 2013 SKQB 252, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Arcand (E.W.), [2014] Sask.R. Uned. 82; 2014 SKPC 214, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Schedlosky (M.K.) (2013), 435 Sask.R. 162; 2013 SKPC 212, refd to. [para. 7].

Sandison v. Rybiak (1973), 39 D.L.R.(3d) 366 (Ont. H.C.), dist. [para. 7].

Bentham and Salmon v. Rothbart (1989), 36 O.A.C. 13 (Div. Ct.), affing. (1988), 26 C.P.C.(2d) 109 (Ont. H.C.), dist. [para. 7].

Collis v. Toronto Police Services Board et al. (2007), 228 O.A.C. 333 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 7].

High Parklane Consulting Inc. et al. v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 37 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 8].

Whatcott v. Schluff et al. (2009), 329 Sask.R. 24; 2009 SKQB 56, refd to. [para. 9].

Klein et al. v. Seiferling et al., [1999] 10 W.W.R. 554; 179 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 9].

Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002), 161 O.A.C. 302; 60 O.R.(3d) 474 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Lang v. Burch and Carlson (1982), 18 Sask.R. 99; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Enterprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 2004 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 9].

Nelson et al. v. Saskatchewan et al. (2003), 235 Sask.R. 250; 2003 SKQB 265, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Stewart, [2013] S.J. No. 799 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Del Core v. College of Pharmacists (Ont.) (1985), 10 O.A.C. 57; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Anderson (J.) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 255; 602 W.A.C. 255; 308 C.C.C.(3d) 11; 2014 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Brenner (D.M.) (2015), 469 Sask.R. 229; 2015 SKQB 39, refd to. [para. 21].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Police Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. P-15.01, sect. 10(3) [para. 27].

Counsel:

Jarvis Stewart on his own behalf;

Robert J. Gibbings, Q.C., and Samuel Edmondson, student-at-law, for the defendant.

This action was heard by Gabrielson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon. The Court delivered the following judgment, dated April 15, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP