The Lawyers Weekly - December 16, 2011

Nearly 18 months already have passed since the G20 summit was held in Toronto, and the legal fallout from it will continue well into 2012.

In August, Ontario Superior Court Justice Carolyn Horkins gave a $75 million class-action lawsuit, launched by Toronto office administrator Sherry Good in August 2010, the go-ahead to proceed with certification.

The suit, filed by Toronto lawyers Eric Gillespie and Murray Klippenstein, seeks $30 million in general damages for false imprisonment, assault and battery, systemic negligence, among other torts, as well as several breaches under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and alleged discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. It also seeks $15 million each for aggravated and special damages for the same torts and Charter violations and punitive and exemplary damages.

Named as defendants are: the Toronto Police Services Board, Attorney General of Canada ( specifically, the RCMP and Canadian Forces), Ontario Provincial Police and the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, whose force was responsible for security at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

The proposed class members could include between 800 and 1,500 people who were arrested and/or subjected to mass detention by police on June 26 and 27, 2010, during the G20 summit, according to Gillespie, whose practice focuses on class-action lawsuits.

Good was 51 years old at the time she was arrested and detained while participating in a G20 demonstration in downtown Toronto.

Another class-action lawsuit— this one for $115 million launched by activists Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber and filed in Ontario Superior Court by Toronto lawyer Charles Wagman—was stayed in August by Horkins, who noted “no meaningful differences in the causes of action pled” between it and the Good class action.

In October, the statement of claim for the latter suit was amended and filed with the court to include two new defendants (the OPP and Peel police) and to include a new subclass of people charged with a criminal offence and/or held at the G20 detention centre set up on Eastern Avenue in Toronto. There are seven other subclasses of people identified that were arrested or subjected to mass detention by police at various locations throughout the city.

Gillespie told The Lawyers Weekly that many class members

services, along with the Ontario government for $350,000.

Shiller said the action targets the government for enacting the controversial Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) and the police for improperly using it after his client was arrested and detained for being within five metres of a secured perimeter area identified in the legislation. Veitch insisted he never attempted to enter the prohibited zone and a charge of neglecting to comply with the direction of a peace officer contrary to the PWPA was withdrawn in August 2010.

Three months later, a charge
of personating a peace officer was
also withdrawn. As Veitch was
preparing to fly out of Pearson on
June 29, 2010, Peel regional
police arrested him on the charge
based on a comment he had
made to a security guard, prior to
being arrested on the first charge,
that he was affiliated with “Brit-
ish Military Intelligence” and was
with “the Metropolitan Police.”
Veitch “was being facetious” and
was not representing a Canadian
peace officer and thus, “an essential
element of the offence was absent,”
according to his statement of claim.

“The fundamental problem with the G20 was that about 850 people were arrested without cause and held in custody for about 30 hours and released without charges or had the charges withdrawn — and each and every one of those cases is actionable and winnable,” said Shiller in an interview.

While it wasn’t a civil action, Michael Puddy was completely vindicated of a criminal charge this past summer. In August, Ontario Justice Melvyn Green acquitted him of possessing a prohibited weapon in R. v. Puddy, [2011] O.J. No. 3690.

After Puddy was arrested during a G20 demonstration, police discovered that he was carrying a knife during a pat-down search. However, Green excluded the knife as evidence after he concluded that Puddy’s arrest and detention were “arbitrary,” and the search and seizure of the knife infringed on his s. 8 Charter right.

“It’s sad that one’s Charter rights can be violated in such a fashion, and there’s no accountability by the police for doing it,” Puddy’s counsel, Toronto criminal defence lawyer Adam Goodman, told The Lawyers Weekly. “I doubt there will be any consequences for the police, and I

would be shocked if there were.” n Oatley ads LW 1/8 PG_Layout 1 11-07-12 11: 12 AM Page 4

NATHAN DENETTE / THE CANADIAN PRESS

A person who was arrested in relation to G20 protests is released from the Toronto detention facility on June 27, 2010.

It’s sad that one’s Charter rights can be violated in such a fashion, and there’s no accountability by the police for doing it.

“

Toronto lawyer Adam Goodman

have already provided feedback that declarations acknowledging their Charter rights were violated are just as important “if not more” as financial redress resulting from the lawsuit.

“One of the objectives of a
class proceeding is behaviour
modification—not only of the
named defendants but similarly
situated defendants.”
For example, he explained that
if the court were to make a state-
ment on the use of kettling (where
police surrounded a group of
people and prevented them from
leaving the area) as a mechanism
for detention, it would have impli-
cations not only for the defend-
ants in the Good action but would
be noted by police services across
Canada and possibly elsewhere.

“Any court declaration related to a Charter violation from the practice of kettling could be something that has effects for future large events like the G20.” A certification hearing for Good v. Toronto Police Services Board has been scheduled for Oct. 2 to 4, 2012.

Meanwhile, the Toronto litigation firm Ruby Shiller Chan has been busy with several G20-related lawsuits that have yet to be resolved.

Lawyers Clayton Ruby and
Brian Shiller are representing Nat-
alie Gray, who is suing the Toronto
Police Services Board (TPSB) and
several unnamed officers for $1.65
million. One of about 150 people
who protested at the Eastern
Avenue detention centre on June
27, Gray claims a police officer shot
her with rubber bullets that struck
her on the sternum and left arm
(Ruby showed reporters a video
earlier this year that he said shows
her getting shot by police).