Ross v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

Ross v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

Defendants' motions were dismissed because they failed to establish the claim was statute-barred (plaintiff alleged continuing conduct thus limitation not proven to have expired), the affidavit evidence was not sufficiently definitive to show the plaintiff was bound to lose under Rule 18(6), and statutory immunity did not preclude naming the government entities or serve as a bar to the action as pleaded; accordingly the application to dismiss was denied.

Citation
2009 BCSC 930
Parties
Plaintiff: David Jonathan Ross; Defendant: Hope RCMP; Defendant: Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia; Defendant: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Action (personal Injury/privacy/surveillance) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Rule 18(6) and Limitation/crown Immunity Challenge
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed; action permitted to proceed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Limitations Period (limitation Act), Crown Immunity (crown Liability and Proceedings Act), Police Act Immunity, Continuing Tort, Pleading Adequacy
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Statutory Limitation Crown Liability Police Law Privacy and Surveillance Summary Judgment Limitations Period (limitation Act) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Jonathan Ross

Plaintiff

Hope RCMP

Defendant

Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia

Defendant

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Action (personal Injury/privacy/surveillance) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Rule 18(6) and Limitation/crown Immunity Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute-barred under Limitation Act s.3(2)
  2. 2 Whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 18(6) because the plaintiff is bound to lose
  3. 3 Whether statutory immunities (Police Act s.21 and CLPA s.10) bar the action against the named government defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' motions were dismissed because they failed to establish the claim was statute-barred (plaintiff alleged continuing conduct thus limitation not proven to have expired), the affidavit evidence was not sufficiently definitive to show the plaintiff was bound to lose under Rule 18(6), and statutory immunity did not preclude naming the government entities or serve as a bar to the action as pleaded; accordingly the application to dismiss was denied.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed; action permitted to proceed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment under Rule 18(6) dismissed
  • Limitation defence under Limitation Act s.3(2) dismissed (defence not made out on material before court)