Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board)

Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board)

Majority held the battery claim's discoverability was postponed until the appellant's acquittal on Feb 17, 2016 because the civil battery claim was inextricably linked to the criminal proceedings and it was reasonable for the claimant to await the criminal outcome; therefore the Notice of Action dated June 2, 2016...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 ONCA 962
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Robert Winmill; Respondent/defendant: Woodstock Police Services Board; Respondent/defendant: Police Constable Dopf; Respondent/defendant: Police Constable Campbell; Respondent/defendant: Police Constable John Doe(s); Respondent/defendant: Constable Jane Doe(s)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of motion judge set aside; battery claim permitted to proceed to trial; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Discoverability, Battery, Negligent Investigation, Limitations Act 2002, Impact of Criminal Proceedings on Civil Limitation
Source Language
english
Tort Limitations Civil Procedure Police Liability Discoverability Battery Negligent Investigation Limitations Act 2002 +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Winmill

Appellant/plaintiff

Woodstock Police Services Board

Respondent/defendant

Police Constable Dopf

Respondent/defendant

Police Constable Campbell

Respondent/defendant

Police Constable John Doe(s)

Respondent/defendant

Constable Jane Doe(s)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's battery claim was discovered within the two‑year limitation period under s.4 read with s.5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002
  2. 2 Whether the outcome of related criminal proceedings (acquittal) delayed discoverability for the civil battery claim

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the battery claim's discoverability was postponed until the appellant's acquittal on Feb 17, 2016 because the civil battery claim was inextricably linked to the criminal proceedings and it was reasonable for the claimant to await the criminal outcome; therefore the Notice of Action dated June 2, 2016 was within the two‑year limitation period and the battery claim was not statute‑barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of motion judge set aside; battery claim permitted to proceed to trial; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and motion judge's order dismissing the battery claim set aside
  • Plaintiff's battery claim against the respondents permitted to proceed to trial