Issued Notice of G20 Class Action Sherry Good vs Toronto Police Services Board & Attorney General of Canada

8/9/2019 Issued Notice of G20 Class Action Sherry Good vs Toronto Police Services Board & Attorney General of Canada

1/13

CourtFileNo. 4o i-siONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SHERRY GOODPlaintiff

..? )a...: and

&

ORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD andATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

DefendantsProceeding under the Class ProceedingsAct, 1992

NOTICE OF ACTION

TO THE DEFENDANTS:A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by theplaintiff. The claim made against you is se t ou t in the statement of claim served with this notice

of action.IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer actingfor you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 1 8A prescribed by the Rules ofCivil

Procedure, serve it on the plaintiffs lawyer or, where the plaintiffdoes not have a lawyer, serveit on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTYDAYS after this notice of action is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States ofAmerica, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you areserved outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.


2/13

2

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice ofintent to defend in Form 1 8B prescribed by the Rules ofCivil Procedure. This will entitle you toten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN

AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAYLEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING ALOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

Date: August 5, 2010 Issued by:

________________________

Local RegistrarAddress of 393 University Avenue, 10h floorcourt office: Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E6

TO: TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD40 College StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2J3

AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADAdo Deputy Attorney General of CanadaExchange Tower130 King Street West , Sui te 3400P0 Box 36Toronto, Ontario M5X 1 K6


3/13

3

CLAIMRelief Claimed

The Plaintiffs claim, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class members for th isac tion , is for:

(a) General dam ages in the amount of$15,000,000.00;

(b) Aggravated and special dam ages in the amount of $15,000,000.00;

(c) Pun itive and exem plary damages in the am ount of $15,000,000.00;

(d) Declarations of their rights;

(e) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pu rsuant to the Courts ofJustice Act;

(1) Costs of this act ion on a substantial indemnity basis , together with post-judgmentinterest thereon, pursuant to s. 129 of the Courts ofJustice Act; and

(g) Such fur ther and other relief as this Honou rab le Cou rt may deem just.

II. Overview

2. This ac tion is brough t to preserve and affirm the fundamenta l civil rights of over 800Canadian citizens, res iden ts , and visitor s who, in the context of the global G20 Summitmeeting in Toronto on June 26-27, 2010, publicly and lawful ly demonstrated to expresstheir concerns on issues of public importance, or who were observing and reporting onthose demonstrations, or who were present simply by chance, and who were wrongfullyand without good cause arrested , detained, imprisoned, and/or held by police.


4/13

4

III. The Parties

3. The Plaintiff Sherry Good is an office administrator residing in Toronto, Ontario.

4. The Defendant Toronto Police Services Board is the municipal police services boardfor the City of Toronto pursuant to the provincial Police Services Act. The TorontoPolice Services Board is liable for the wrongful or negligent acts and omissions of themembers, employees, and agents of the Board and of the Toronto Police Service,including those from other police forces operating under their jurisdiction or command.

5. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the RCMP) is the police force for Canadapursuant to the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The federal Crown is liable,pursuant to the federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, for the wrongful ornegligent acts and omissions of the RCMPs members, employees, and agents , includingthose from other police forces operating under its jurisdiction or command. According tothe Act, the Defendant Attorney General of Canada is also the person in whose nameproceedings are taken against the federal Crowm

III Claim Background

The G20 Summit

6. On December 7. 2009, the Government of Canada announced that it would be hosting asummit of the leaders of the Group of Twenty countries (the G20) in Toronto. Thissummit was held nearly seven months later during June 26 and 27 , 2010. In anticipationof this summit and a summit of the Group of Eight (the G8) immediately before inHuntsville, Ontario, about $1.2 billion was spent on summit-related expenses, of whichabout $930 million was spent on security and police related expenses.

7. As part of its preparations for the summits, the RCMP set up a G8-G20 SummitsIntegrated Security Unit (ISU). According to the ISUs website, [t]he ISU is a jointforces team comprised of security experts collaborating together to ensure the safety of


5/13

5

the Heads of State, the community and minimize to the fullest extent possible, thepotential impact of police secu rity operations. The website also stated that [t ]he G20ISU will also uphold the fundamenta l freedoms of thought , belief, opinion , expressionand of peaceful assembly as outlined in the Canad ian Charter ofRights and Freedoms[the Charlerl .

8. The ISU was under the direction of a Chief Superintendent of the RCMP, and the RCMPwas the leading partner in the ISU. The RCMP was also responsible for the general coordination of security.

9. The Toronto Po lice Service was also a key partner in the ISU, and it was responsible forco-ordination of public orde r within the City of Toronto, crowd management, andprisoner processing. As part of these responsibilities, a temporary detention centre forprisoner processing for G20-related arrests was created at 629 Eastern Avenue , Toronto,Ontario (the Eastern Detention Centre) .

10. The RCMP and Toronto Police Service operated under a unified command for G20purposes.

11. Given the experience of previous G20 summits , it was widely expected tha t politica ldemonstrations by citizens, residents , and visitors would occur in the period lead ing up tothe summit as well as over the summit weekend. These political demonstrations wereexpected to express public concern on a variety of topics, given the nature and scale ofthe G20. including issues such as climate change , global pove rty, indigenous rights, andgender equality. In fact, during the weekend, tho usands of people did peacefullyparticipate in such political demonstrations pursuant to the rights and freedomsguaranteed to eve ryone in Canada by the Charter.

12. However, during the cou rse of the G20 weekend, the largest number ofmass ar res ts inCanadian history occurred . In the end, over 1,000 demonstrators and othe rs (includingjournalists, lega l observers, tou rists, bystanders and ci tizen s conducting their normalbusiness withou t any connection to the demonstrations) were arrested and/o r detained by


6/13

6

police officers responsible to the Toronto Police Service and the RCMP. Over 100 ofthese individuals were released at the scene of the arrest andJor detention with nocharges; over 700 more were arrested for breaching the peace and taken into custodybut eventually were released with no charges; and the remainder were charged withalleged criminal offences and sent for bail hearings. In other words, the vast majority(over 800) of those arrested and/or detained were released with no charges, and withoutthe police ever having to appear before a court or any authority to justify the detentions orarrests.

The Plaintiffs Activities and Wrongful Arrest on June 26 and 27

13. The Plaintiffwas one of those who participated in demonstrations over the course of theG20 Summit weekend. The Plaintiff had no involvement in organizing any of thedemonstrations, and participated purely as an ordinary citizen expressing concerns onpublic issues, as she believed was her right in Canada. The Plaintiff at no timeparticipated in any vandalism or property damage during the June 26 and 27 weekend.

14. On Saturday, June 26, the Plaintiff and a friend joined in the organized publicdemonstration which began at Queens Park and traveled south along University Avenue.

15. At Queen Street West, the demonstration turned west, and the Plaintiff and he r friendbegan walking westward along Queen Street West with other demonstrators. After thedemonstration arrived at Spadina Avenue some of the demonstrators, including thePlaintiff and her friend, returned eastward along Queen Street West. As the Plaintiff andher friend were walking eastward, still within a block of Spadina Avenue, she saw twopolice cars seemingly abandoned on the street.

16. Later that afternoon, the Plaintiffjoined in a peaceful demonstration that occurred nearthe security fence that had been erected to surround the Metro Toronto ConventionCentre where G20 leaders were meeting.


7/13

7

17. Eventually, the Plaintiff and her f riend left the demonstrations and went home andwatched the news on TV . On the news they saw video images of the apparentlyabandoned police cars that they had walked past on Queen Street West, which were nowshown to be in flames.

18. The next day, on the afternoon of Sunday, June 27, the Plaintiff and her friend decided toreturn to the demonstration area from their home nearby and potentially observe orparticipate in further demonstrations. They walked west along Queen Street West, no t aspart of any demonstration. Near the corner of Queen Street West and Bay Street, theywere stopped by police, questioned, and searched, despite the fact that the Plaintiff is inher fifties and did no t appear threatening or disorderly in any way. The Plaintiff assertsthat there was nothing about them or their activities that justified the questioning and thesearch.

19. Shortly thereafter, as the Plaintiff and her friend were continuing their walk westward,and as they approached the corner of Queen Street West and York Street, a police SU Vsuddenly pulled in front of them and blocked their path. Police officers from the SUV,and other officers who were nearby, surrounded both the Plaintiff and he r friend. Thepolice officers proceeded to question both the Plaintiff and her friend, and to search andvery aggressively interrogate he r friend. The officers made several threatening andprofanity-laced comments to her friend (such as just give me a f*king reason to shootyou, give me that backpack before I cu t it off and get ou t of our city), and madederogatory comments about the fact that the Plaintiff and her friend had been present atthe security fence the previous day. The Plaintiff was surprised and frightened that theofficers would be aware of that fact, and by the way that her peaceful demonstration theday before was suggested by the officers as a justification for the search and detention.

20. Both the Plaintiff and her friend were eventually allowed to continue. The Plaintiff andher friend were both shocked and frightened by these infringements of what they hadthought were their rights and freedoms. They continued walking along Queen StreetWest, stopping at points to try to calm down. They eventually decided to walk backeastward along Queen Street towards home.


8/13

8

21. While walking eastward on their way home, at approximately Queen Street West andYork Street, they encountered a group of peaceful demonstrators (and non-demonstrators) who were being herded westward along Queen Street by a group ofpolice. As the Plaintiff and he r friend could no longer continue eastward, and had fewoptions, they began walking westward with the demonstrators who were being movedwestward by the police.

22. At about the corner of Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue, the peaceful group ofdemonstrators and others was suddenly surrounded by hundreds of police officers in riotgear, without any warning, and without any opportunity to disperse. The group ofdemonstrators and others now consisted of several hundred individuals, of a variety ofages and backgrounds. There appeared to be no reason or rationale for the detainment.Over a period of t ime , the ranks of the police officers who were surrounding themgradually closed in on the group in an intimidating fashion using a technique commonlyknown as kettling. The group was squeezed into a smaller and smaller area on thestreet at the intersection of Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue. People were no tallowed to leave. No information was provided to them. No reason was given as to whythe group was being detained.

23. The Plaintiff and others were detained for over four hours in a small area at this location,on the street, in the open, without access to washrooms or other basic facilities, andwithout the ability to leave. During this time a severe rainstorm began and the group wasforced to stand in the intersection in a sustained and heavy downpour of rain whichdrenched them. They had no shelter or protection, and as time passed, many becameseverely chilled. During this detention, the police began to arrest some individuals in thegroup by suddenly rushing forward and seizing them and dragging them from inside thesurrounded area. There appeared to be no logic o r justification for these forceful andapparently random arrests, which created considerable fear among the group. Finally,after approximately four hours in these conditions, the police released the remainingdetainees by allowing them to leave to the north.


9/13

9

24. The Plaintiff left the site of her detention soaked to the skin, cold , miserab le, angry, andno t qu ite able to bel ieve what had just happened to her. She was unab le to sleep tha tnight. Although the Plaintiff had never be fo re been afraid to travel on the streets ofToronto, after her treatment by the police on the Summit weekend she found that she wasvery ne rvous to be out on the streets, because her sense of safety in public places hadbeen destroyed. Anyone in a uniform now caused her to instinctively react withwariness. Her wrongful arres t and the actio ns of the po lice on that weekend have shakenthe belief she once had that her rights and freedoms were secure under the laws ofCanada.

114 The Claims of the Plaintjffand Class Members25. The Plaintiff asserts tha t her arres t and detention, and the vast majority of the arrests and

de tentions ov er the course of the G20 weekend , were unlawful and unjustified , as well asunconstitutional unde r the Charter, and she thus brings this ac tion on her own behalf, aswell as on behalf of the class members for th is ac tion , for monetary damages and forCourt dec larations of rights.

26. The primary class fo r th is action is all those individuals in the City of Toronto who werearrested andlor detained by police during June 26 and 27, 2010, but who were then laterreleased without charge. For the purposes of this action , detention inc lude s thoseindividuals sub ject to the policing technique known as kettling, as occur red at thecorner ofQueen Street West and Spadina Avenue.

27. This action seeks particular relief on behalf of the following sub -classes:

(a) Those individuals at or in the vic inity of Queens Park on June 26, 2010 whowere arrested and lor detained, but who were later released without beingcha rged;


10/13

10

(b) Those individuals at or in the vicinity of the Hote l Novotel Toronto Cen tre on theEsplanade on June 26 , 2010 who were surrounded by police, arrested, and/ordetained, bu t who were later released without being charged;

(c) Those individuals outside and in the vicinity of the Eastern Detention Centre whowere surrounded by police, arrested, and/or detained between June 26, 2010 atabout 10:00 pm and June 27, 2010 at about 4:00 am , bu t who were later releasedwithout being charged;

(d) Those individuals at or in the vicinity of the intersection of Queen Street Westand Spadina Avenue on June 27, 2010 who were surrounded by police, arrested,and/or detained, bu t who were later released without being charged; and

(e) Those individuals at or in the vicinity of the intersection of Queen Street Westand Noble Street on June 27, 2010 who were surrounded by police, arrested,and/or detained, bu t who were later released without being charged.

(f) Those individuals at locations in Toronto other than the above who on June 26 or27, 2010 were arrested and/or detained by police, in relation to th e G20 Summit,bu t who were later released without being charged.

28. This action also seeks findings and damages on behalf of those whose detention in theEastern Detention Centre commenced on either June 26 or 27, 2010. The EasternDetention Centre was a temporary prison constructed inside a large unused film industrybuilding near downtown Toronto, specifically tobe used during the G20 Summit.

29. Many hundreds of demonstrators and others, who had done nothing wrong, were held inthe Eastern Detention Centre in conditions which were deplorable, considering thehundreds ofmillions of dollars being spent on G8-G20 policing and security, and theconsiderable length of time police had been given to plan for the Summit.


11/13

11

30. Individuals who were im pr is on ed at the Eas ter n Detention Centre were jammed intoovercrowded cells for twen ty hours or more, handcuffed the en tire time, w ithout food orwater for ten hours or longer, som etim es w ithout to ilets, without pr ope r cl oth es orbla nket s to protec t against the cold con di tion s, without medical care or m ed ic atio n forthose who were sick or in jured, and w ithou t any way to inform th eir families or friends ofwhere they were. Detainees were not informed of their right to re tain legal co uns el, andwere de nie d the opportunity to call legal counsel des pite their clea r legal ri ght to do so,and desp ite thei r re que sts to do so. During their im prisonm en t, det ainees were sometimesrid icu led and harassed by po lice office rs w ith racist, sexist, lur id and hom oph obic in sultsand pr ovocat ions.

31. The Plaintiff ass erts that various unla w fu l acts or torts were committed by police office rsag ain st the Plaintiff and members of the class as a result of the pol ice m et hods, actions,arrests, and detentions associated w ith the G20. The Defendants are di rect ly andvic arious ly liable fo r these torts. These torts incl ude false imprisonment, assault andbatte ry, and abuse of process, as well as negligence in the management and direct ion ofofficers.

32. The Plaintiff fu rther asse rts that illegal and fundamentally unacceptable violations of thePlaint iffs and clas s members co nstitu tional rights and fu ndam enta l freedo m s werecommitted by polic e of fic ers, co ntrary to righ ts guaranteed by the Charter to all Canadiancitizens , res idents , and visitors. These vi ola tio ns occurred as a result of the pol icemethods, act ions, ar re sts, and det ent ions associated with the G20. The Defendants aredirectly and vicariously liable for these violation s, and the Plaintiff asserts that she andclass m em ber s are also entitled to othe r constitutional declarations and re m edie s. Theviolated rights and free dom s inc lude:

(a) freedom of th oug ht, belief, opinion and expre ss ion , inclu din g freedom of thepress and other m ed ia of communications (section 2(b));

(b) f reed om of peaceful as sem bly (se ction 2(c));


12/13

12

(c) freedom of association (section 2(d));

(d) the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (section 8));

(e) the right not to be arbitrarily de tained or imprisoned (sect ion 9);

(0 the right on arrest or detention to be informed promptly of the reasonstherefore (sect ion 10(a)); and

(g) the righ t on arres t or detention to reta in and instruct counsel without delay andto be informed of tha t right (sec tion 10(b)).

33. The Plaintiff accordingly seeks, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class members forthis action, appropriate remedies and dam ages against the Defendants for the above ac tsand Charter violation s.

Date: August 5, 2010 KLIPPENSTEINSBanisters & Solicitors160 John Street, Sui te 300Toronto, Ontario M5V 2E5Murray Klippenstein, LSUC No. 26950GBasil Alexander, LSUC No. 50950HTel.: (416 ) 598 -0288Fax: (416) 598 -9520Solicitors for the PlaintiffERIC K. GILLESPIEPROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONBarristers and Solicitors10 King Street East, Suite 600Toronto , Ontario M5C 1C3Eric K. Gillespie, LSUC No. 37815PTel: (416 ) 703 -6362Fax: (416) 703-9111Counsel to the Plaintiff


13/13

SH

G

v

TOOOPOCSVCB

ea

Pan

Dee

s

C

FeN

OAO

Po

ncmme

aToo

NO

A

O N

KPNTN

BseaSco

1JoSeSe3

TooOaoM5V2E

M

KpnenLUN2

G

BAexnLUN5

H

T(450

F(459

ScosohPanf

ERCKGL

E

PRO

O

COOAO

BseaSco

1KnSeESe6

TooOaoM5C1C

EcKGepeLUN3P

T(476

F(479

Documents

Issued Notice of G20 Class Action Sherry Good vs Toronto Police Services Board & Attorney General of Canada