Kivell v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge’s factual finding that the officer had subjective and objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and the appellants failed to present expert evidence to establish negligent investigation, warranting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2020 ONCA 180
- Parties
- Appellants: Brian Kivell and Betty-Jo Kivell, Erica Kivell, Gracie Kivell, Sasha Kivell, Kaitlynn Kivell, Ezra Kivell and Sawyer Kivell by their Litigation Guardian, Betty-Jo Kivell; Respondent: Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (Operated by The Children’s Aid Society of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent); Respondent: Cristina Ruscica; Respondent: Robin Rose; Respondent: Chatham-Kent Police Services Board; Respondent: Police Constable Gary Oriet
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal Court of Appeal Decision (on Appeal From Superior Court Order Dated August 15, 2019)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Negligent Investigation, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brian Kivell and Betty-Jo Kivell, Erica Kivell, Gracie Kivell, Sasha Kivell, Kaitlynn Kivell, Ezra Kivell and Sawyer Kivell by their Litigation Guardian, Betty-Jo Kivell
Appellants
Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (Operated by The Children’s Aid Society of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent)
Respondent
Cristina Ruscica
Respondent
Robin Rose
Respondent
Chatham-Kent Police Services Board
Respondent
Police Constable Gary Oriet
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal Court of Appeal Decision (on Appeal From Superior Court Order Dated August 15, 2019)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs adduced expert evidence to establish the standard of care for negligent investigation
- 3 Whether summary judgment for the respondent was appropriate in the litigation as a whole
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge’s factual finding that the officer had subjective and objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and the appellants failed to present expert evidence to establish negligent investigation, warranting summary judgment for the respondents.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to the respondents in the amount of $15,000 including HST and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kivell v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-03-06 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 180 Docket numbers C67427 Judges Tulloch, Michael H.; Benotto, Mary Lou; Jamal, Mahmud Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Kivell v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, 2020 ONCA 180 DATE: 20200306 DOCKET: C67427 Tulloch, Benotto and Jamal JJ.A. BETWEEN Brian Kivell and Betty-Jo Kivell, Erica Kivell, Gracie Kivell, Sasha Kivell, Kaitlynn Kivell, Ezra Kivell and Sawyer Kivell by their Litigation Guardian, Betty-Jo Kivell Plaintiffs (Appellants) and Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (Operated by The Children’s Aid Society of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent), Cristina Ruscica, Robin Rose, Chatham-Kent Police Services Board and Police Constable Gary Oriet Defendants (Respondents) Raymond G. Colautti, for the appellants Sheila Handler, for the respondents Heard and released orally: March 3, 2020 On appeal from the order of Justice Jonathon C. George of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 15, 2019. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The motion judge’s conclusion that the officer had subjective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest is supported by the evidence and entitled to deference. The grounds were objectively reasonable. [2] The allegation of negligent investigation is answered by the fact that – as stated by the motion judge – the appellant presented no expert evidence as to the standard of care to rebut the evidence filed by the police. [3] This is one of those rare cases when summary judgment in favour of one defendant is appropriate in the context of the litigation as a whole. [4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondents in the amount of $15,000 including HST and disbursements. “M. Tulloch J.A.” “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “M. Jamal J.A.”