Court File No. 17100/97

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff James Donald Townsend claims:

a. Damages against all defendants for false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the amount of $100,000.00.

b. Special damages in the amount of $20,000.00 or such other amount as may represent the cost of the defence of the plaintiff against criminal charges.

c. A declaration that the defendants Clarida and Rowe acted unlawfully in arresting and detaining the plaintiff.

d. Costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis.

2. The plaintiff is and was at all material times a resident of the City of Sault Ste Marie.

3. The defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service is the municipal police enforcement agency in the City of Sault Ste. Marie. The defendants Bradley Clarida and Martin Rowe are peace officers engaged at all material times as employees of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service.

4. The defendant Jeffrey D. Broadbent was at all material times and is now the spouse of the defendant Tracy-Lynn Broadbent, the owner of civic number 925 Fourth Line East in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, being Lot 73, R.C.P. H-737 (the “Broadbent property“) which is a property abutting the property known as 927 Fourth Line East, in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, being Lot 67, R.C.P. H-737 (the “Townsend property”) which property is owned by the spouse of the Plaintiff. At all material times both the plaintiff and the defendant Broadbent occupied and continue to occupy the respective properties as their respective family residences.

5. At all material times, the Plaintiff was involved in a long standing civil dispute with his neighbors the defendant Broadbent. The said dispute related to the rights and obligations of the Plaintiff and the neighbors (the “Broadbents“) with respect to an easement on and over a portion of the Broadbent property for the benefit of the owner of the Townsend property.

FIRST CRIMINAL CHARGES - DECEMBER 1996

6. In or about December 1996, the defendant Jeffrey D. Broadbent complained to the defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service or its employees that the plaintiff had harassed the defendant Broadbent and his family and that the Plaintiff had breached a certain civil order of the Ontario Court General Division.

7. As a direct result of this complaint, the defendant Clarida, for whose actions the defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service is answerable at law, attended upon a Justice of the Peace and obtained a warrant to search the dwelling on the Townsend property at 927 Fourth Line East for the purpose of locating certain things, namely “photographic pictures and negatives and video pictures of Jeff and Tracy Broadbent and their children and pictures of their home and property” as evidence in respect of an alleged commission, suspected commission or intended commission of an offence against the Criminal code of Canada, namely criminal harassment.

8. On or about December 30, 1996, the defendant Clarida attended at the said residence with search warrant in hand.

9. The defendant Clarida proceeded however to arrest the plaintiff on charges of breach of a court order contrary to section 127 and criminal harassment contrary to section 264 (1) and 2(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

10. The said defendant Clarida effected the said arrest without making any appropriate inquiries of the plaintiff to obtain information or evidence from the plaintiff in response to the allegations that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence.

11. The plaintiff states that the charges for which he was arrested are unfounded at law and that the defendant Clarida failed to act impartially and without bias, conscientiously, diligently and professionally.

12. The plaintiff states that had the defendant Clarida acted properly, without bias, conscientiously, diligently and professionally, he would have discovered prior to arresting the plaintiff that there was no basis for the arrest, detention and subsequent prosecution.

13. The plaintiff further states that on or about December 30, 1996, he was transported in the Police cruiser by the defendant Clarida to the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service building and detained there several hours prior to being released.

14. The plaintiff states that he was deprived thereby of his liberty and security, that he was embarrassed, that his reputation suffered thereby and has suffered since then, that he has had to appear on numerous occasions at court in answer to these charges and that though the charges have not yet been dealt with, the charges will surely be dismissed. The plaintiff is being put to the expense of his defence to these charges, which would otherwise not have been incurred.

15. The plaintiff further states that the defendant Clarida, the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General through the office of the Crown Attorney of the district of Algoma have all been made fully aware of the necessary facts which would lead any reasonable prosecutor to know that the criminal allegations are unfounded and yet, the said parties have refused or failed to promptly withdraw the said charges, thereby continuing and exacerbating the injury to the plaintiff and his family.

16. In respect of the arrest and subsequent prosecution of the charges laid on or about December 30, 1996, the plaintiff states that the named defendants and the agents and representatives of Her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Ontario (who will be added as a defendant to this action upon the expiration of the statutory notice period) have acted toward the plaintiff in a malicious manner and without reasonable and probable ground by causing the arrest, detention and prosecution of the said criminal offences charges against the plaintiff.

17. The plaintiff states that the prosecution in question was instigated by the defendants Broadbent and the information sworn by another officer at the instance of the defendant Clarida and pursued by Her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the attorney General.

18. The plaintiff states that the defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and Clarida have not met a reasonable standard of care, that they have acted maliciously with preference for the defendants Broadbent and with partiality against and antipathy toward the plaintiff Townsend.

19. The Plaintiff states that the said defendants have cooperated to prosecute the plaintiff without reasonable and probable ground but rather with malice.

20. The plaintiff states that the defendants herein and prosecutors in the criminal matter have failed to make reasonable and necessary inquiries to discover the evidence readily available which would have resulted in no charges being laid against the plaintiff.

21. The plaintiff states that the defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service is responsible for the actions or omissions of its employees, the defendant Clarida.

22. The plaintiff states that the defendants Jeffrey D. Broadbent and Tracy-Lynn Broadbent individually, jointly or on behalf of and with the knowledge of the other, knowingly, negligently or recklessly represented facts which were false, grossly inaccurate or incomplete thereby influencing the defendant the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and its representatives, the defendant Clarida to lay the said charges and influencing the Crown’s representatives to continue the said prosecution.

SECOND CRIMINAL CHARGES - APRIL 1997

23. Furthermore, on or about April 26, 1997, in response to earlier complaints dated April 16 and 21, 1997, from the defendant Tracy-Lynn Broadbent and a complaint lodged by the defendant Jeffrey D. Broadbent on April 26, 1997, the defendant Martin Rowe attended at the Townsend property and arrested the plaintiff for breach of an undertaking that he not molest, harass or annoy the defendants Broadbent contrary to section 145(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

24. In so doing the defendant Rowe refused to hear the information, which the plaintiff offered to provide but instead in arresting and detaining the plaintiff, acted solely on the complaints lodged by the defendants Broadbent.

25. The plaintiff further states that on or about April 26, 1997, he was transported in the Police cruiser by the defendant Rowe to the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service building and detained there several hours prior to being released.

26. The plaintiff states that he was deprived thereby of his liberty and security, that he was embarrassed, that his reputation suffered thereby and has suffered since then, that he has had to appear on numerous occasions at court in answer to these charges and that though the charges have not yet been dealt with, the charges will surely be dismissed. The plaintiff is being put to the expense of his defence to this charge, which would otherwise not have been incurred.

27. The said defendant Rowe effected the said arrest without making any appropriate enquiries of the plaintiff to obtain information or evidence from the plaintiff in response to the allegations that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence.

28. The plaintiff states that the charges for which he was arrested are unfounded in law and that the defendant Rowe failed to act impartially and without bias, conscientiously, diligently and professionally.

29. The plaintiff states that had the defendant Rowe acted properly, without bias, conscientiously, diligently and professionally, he would have discovered prior to arresting the plaintiff that there was no basis for the arrest, detention and subsequent prosecution.

30. The plaintiff further states that the defendant Rowe, the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and her majesty the Queen in rights of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General through the office of the Crown Attorney of the District of Algoma have all been made fully aware of the necessary facts which would lead any reasonable prosecutor to know that the criminal allegations are unfounded and yet, the said parties have refused or failed to promptly withdraw the said charges, thereby continuing and exacerbating the injury to the plaintiff and his family.

31. In respect of the arrest and subsequent prosecution of the charges laid on or about April 26, 1997, the plaintiff states that the named defendants and the agents and representatives of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (who will be added as a defendant to this action upon the expiration of the statutory notice period) have acted toward the plaintiff in a malicious manner and without reasonable and probable ground by causing the arrest, detention and prosecution of the said criminal offences charges against the plaintiff.

32. The plaintiff states that the prosecution in question was instigated by the defendants Broadbent and the information sworn by another officer at the instance of the defendant Rowe and pursued by Her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

33. The plaintiff states the said defendants Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and Rowe have not met a reasonable standard of care, that they have acted maliciously with preference for the defendants Broadbent and with partiality against and antipathy toward the plaintiff Townsend.

34. The plaintiff states that the said defendants have cooperated to prosecute the plaintiff without reasonable and probable ground but rather with malice.

34a. The plaintiff states that the defendants herein and the prosecutors in this criminal matter action have failed to make reasonable and necessary enquiries to discover the evidence readily available which would have resulted in no charges being laid against the plaintiff.

35. The plaintiff states that the defendant Sault Ste. Marie Police Service is responsible for the actions of its employees, the defendant Rowe.

36. The plaintiff states that the defendants Jeffrey D. Broadbent and Tracy-Lynn Broadbent individually, jointly or on behalf of and with the knowledge of the other, knowingly, negligently or recklessly represented facts which were false, grossly inaccurate or incomplete thereby influencing the defendant the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service and its representatives, the defendant Rowe to lay the said charges and influencing the Crown’s representatives to continue the said prosecution.

37. The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City of Sault Ste. Marie in the District of Algoma.

DATE: June 27, 1997 Harry & Renaud

Barristers and Solicitors

138 Brock Street

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

Yvon Renaud, counsel for the plaintiff P6A 3B5