No misconduct found in a 2011 police raid of a couple's home
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages relating to a raid executed by officers of the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) in a couple’s house.
The two plaintiffs alleged negligence, assault, and violations of their Charter rights stemming from the police raid at their home. Ultimately, the court found that the search was conducted lawfully and resulted in no compensable harm to the plaintiffs.
The dispute arose in February 2011 when the NRPS Emergency Task Unit conducted a dynamic entry at the plaintiffs’ home in Fort Erie, Ontario.
The officers were executing a search warrant targeting the plaintiffs’ son, who was living in the basement. Police suspected the son of drug trafficking and of possessing a firearm, based on information from a confidential informant.
During the raid, which lasted only a few minutes, police detained the plaintiffs in the living room while searching the premises. Police arrested the son, who was later charged with drug-related offences to which he pleaded guilty.
Plaintiffs’ claims
The plaintiffs alleged that police exceeded their authority during the search, conducted it in an unreasonable manner, and caused them significant psychological trauma. They asked for damages for negligence, assault, and breach of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The wife claimed that police ignored her medical distress during the incident and that she developed post-traumatic stress disorder. On the other hand, the husband allegedly suffered from an acute stress disorder.
Court decision
In Campbell and Turasz v. Niagara Regional Police Service, 2024 ONSC 4241, the Superior Court entirely dismissed the action. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ psychiatric injury claims.
The court sided with the assessment of a psychiatrist who gave expert opinion evidence. The psychiatrist found that neither plaintiff suffered a serious, persistent, or permanent psychiatric injury due to the search.
The court also determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or a breach of the standard of care owed to them by police.
The court ruled that the search fell within the scope of the officers’ duties and did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights. The dynamic entry was lawful and did not involve excessive force, the court said. The officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances, given the information available to them at the time, the court added.
The court noted that the plaintiffs’ narrative of the event appeared to have evolved over time and failed to align with credible evidence presented during trial. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of significant property damage and found the alleged damages unsubstantiated and minimal.
