avis 594 VA “Cou File No, ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: moe JOHN DOE (Plaintiff 1) iy \ and JANE DOE (Plaintiff 2) Plaintitts -and~ TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, JOHN DOE FARE INSPECTOR 1, JOHN DOE FARE INSPECTOR 2, JOHN DOE FARE INSPECTOR 3, TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD, and TORONTO POLICE SERVICE OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOE Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANTS A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiffs. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiffs’ Jawyer or, where the plaintitfs do not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiffs, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario, IF you are served in another provines or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. ff you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the poriod is sixty days, Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B preseribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF ‘YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFFS" CLAIM and costs within the time for sotving and filing your statement of defence, yon may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiffs’ claim and costs and have the costs assessed by the court, TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if it has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action was commenced unless otherwise ordered by the court. owe Ward 34 07 Ft w Local registrar Address of 393 University Avenue, court office Toronto, ON MSG 1E6 TO: TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION 1900 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M4§ 1Z2 AND TO: JOHN DOE FARE INSPECTORS 1,2 &3 Toroato Transit Commission 1900 Yonge Street ‘Toronto, ON M48 1Z2 AND TO: TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD 40 College Street ‘Toronto, ON MSG 23 AND TO: TORONTO POLICE SERVICE OFFICERS JANE AND JOHN DOE Toronto Police Services Board 40 College Street Toronto, ON M5G 2J3CLAIM 1, The Plaintiff, John Doe, claims against all Defendants: 2 ii, iii, vie general damages for negligence, assault, battery and pain and suffering in the amount of $1,000,000,00 (one miltion dollars): damages for breach of the Ontario Human Righls Code for discrimination, harassment and racial profiling in the amount of $250,000.00; damages for the negligent infliction of mental distress in the amount of $250,000.00; special damages in a sum to be disclosed before trial; aggravated damages in the amount of $500,000.00, punitive and/or exemplary damages in the amount of $500,000.00; ‘pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.0. 1990, ¢, 43; his costs of this action on substantial indemnity basis; and such further and other relief as this Honourable Coust deems just. The Plaintiff claims against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Defendant TPSB Officers damages of $250,000.00 for each violation pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedams, and damages for misfeasance of office,3. The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, claims: i, damages pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.0, 1990, ¢, F.3 in the amount of $250,000.00; ii, special damages in a sum to be disclosed prior to trial; iii, pre-and post-judgment interest pursuant to sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, RS.O, 1990, 6. 43; iv. her costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and v. such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. INTRODUCTION 4, On February 18, 2018, Plaintiff 1 was a passonger on a TTC Strcetear when suddenly and without waming he was grabbed and thrown to the ground, face first, where he was pinned for an extended period of time by multiple TTC fare inspectors. 5. Plaintiff 1 was severcty assaulted and illegally detained by Toronto Transit Commission fare inspectors and later by multiple Toronto Police Service officers. He suffered serious, Physical and psychological injuries as a result of this incident. He was never charged with any offence or TTC By-Law infraction. THE PARTIES 6. Plaintiff 1 is 19 years old and a resident of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario. He was the victim of unlawful detention, assault, battery, negligence, discrimination, harassment and racial profiling by the Defendants.7. PlaintitY2 is the mother of Plaintiff 1. She lives in the City of Toronto, She enjoys «close and Joving relationship with her son and is dependent on him for carc, companionship and guidance, 8, The Defendants John Doe 1, 2, and 3, are residents of the Provines of Ontario and were al all material Limes employed as fare inspectors for the Toronto Transit Commission, These Defendant TTC fare inspectors unlawfully assaulted and detained Plaintiff 1 without ‘warning, justification or excuse. They also acted negligently and thereby caused physical and psychological injuries to Plaintiff 1. These Defendants are thus liable to the Plaintiffs are unknown to the for the injuries they have sustained. These Defendants’ identi Plaintitts, 9, The Defendant Toronto ‘Transit Commission is a local passenger transportation commission operating within the Greater Toronto Area. The TTC is continued as a city board of the City of Toronto in accordance with section 394 of the Cis of Toronto Act, 2006, 8.0. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A., as amended, The Defendant TTC was at all material time responsible for the provision of transit services, inclnding the deployment of TTC fare inspectors. in the City of Toronto pursuant to TTC By-Law No. 1. The Defendant TTC is liable in respect of the wrongs committed by its employees. 10. The Defendant Toronto Police Service officers Jolm and Jane Doe, are residents of the Province of Ontario and were at all material times employed as police officers with the Defendant TPSB, The Defendant TPSB officers unlawfully assaulted and detained the Plaintiff without justification or excuse. The Defendants acted negligently toward Plaintiff land thereby caused hi juries. These Defendants arc liable to the Pi iff For assault and battery, misfeasance in public office, negligence and causing nervous shockand emotional distress. They are farther liabic for breaches of the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and for the resulting harms to the PlaintiffS accordingly. The Defendants’ identities are unknown to the Plaintiffs. 11, Tho Defendant Toronto Police Services Board was at alf material times the employer of all police officers in the Toronto Potice Service and, as such, is vicariously liable for the claims of the Plaintiffs pursuant to s. 50(L) of the Police Services Act, RSP 1990, C. p. 15, 12. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant TPSB officers, and the Defendant TPSB individually and/or collectively committed unlawful detention, assault and battery, misfoasance in public office, negligence, infliction of mental distress and breaches of the Charter and the Ontario Human Rights Code against Plaintiff 1. THE FACTS: 13, On February 18, 2018, Plaintiff | was a TTC passenger lawfully travelling on the 512 streetcar westbound near the intersection of St, Clair and Bathurst in the City of Toronto, As he arrived at the St. Clair and Bathurst westbound streetcar stop, the Plaintiff 1 prepared to exit the streetcar. 14. As Plaintiff | tumed to exit the streotear, suddenly and without warming, one or more of the Defendant TTC fare inspectors grabbed him causing him great shock and mental distress. Tn fear of his safety, Plaintiff 1 got up and tried to exit the strectear bat was grabbed and pushed by 3 unidentified TTC fare inspectors without notice or warning.15, The 3 Defendant TTC fare inspociors grabbed tite Pleintiff ond pushed him to the ground face first into the conerele strectear platform. As a result of the use of force by the Defendant TTC fare inspectors, Plaintift | was seriously injured. 16, At no point prior to this assault did the Defendant TTC inspectors seck to communicate ‘with Plaintiff I or to idemtify themselves. 17, Once Plaintiff 1 was incapacitated, laying prone on the ground, the Defendant TTC fare inspectors detained him without reasonable justification or excuse, until police arrived. 18. The Defendant TTC fare inspectors twisted and pinned Plaintiff t's teft shoulder and arm, held his right arm behind his back, and kneeled, sat and held on his back and his legs, Plaintitf 1 was held in this position screaming in pain and screaming for help for an extended period of time. At no time did the Defendant TTC fare inspectors ides 'y themselves to Plaintiff 1, indicate why he was being detained, respond to his cries for help, and/or provide medical services. 19. Soon thereafter, while Plaintiff 1 was stitl on the ground screaming for help and screaming in pain, multiple Defendant TPSB officers arrived on scene and proceeded to pile onto Plaintiff 1_ As a result of these actions by the Defendants, Plaintiff [ sustained multiple injuries and damages to his personal property, These TPSB Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, placed him under arrest, and escorted him to a public area where multiple police cruisers were parked, specifically near or on the hood of a police eruiser where he sat and/or stood for an extended period. 20. After some discussion between the Defendant TPSB officers, Plaintiff | was released without charge approximately 30 to 40 minutes after first being unlawfully detained,21. Prior to releasing Plaintiff 1, the Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff's injuries, but deliberately and/or negligently refrained from making the appropriate inquities as to the cause and severity of his injuries. None of these Defendants look any steps to ensure that Plaintiff 1 received immediate medical atlention for his injurics, inchiding an obvious head injury, Despite this obvious head injury, Plaintiff | was released from custody and was made to find his own way home. 22, At no time did any of the Defendants take steps to advise medical personnel of the nature of the force that was used against Plaintiff | during the course of the incident, or of the injuries he sustained, LIABILITY Assault 23. The Plaintiff state that the Defendant TTC fare inspectors and TPSB officers committed assault on Plaintiff 1, In particular, these Defendants applied force to Plaintiff 1 in the absence of his consent. This force was excessive, unreasonable and not justifiable at law. This force was applied with the intent to injure Plaintiff 1 and was excessive in the circumstances, Abuse of Public Office/Misfeasance in Publ ce 24, The Defendant TPSB oificers are holders of public office. The Plaintiffs ropeat and rely upon the facts as set out above and state that the officers deliberately violated the law in committing an assault on Pleintiff 1.25. These Defendants deliberately caused injuries and/or losses to the Plaintifls, and are therefore liable to the Plaintiffs for abuse of public office and/or misfeasance in public office, 26. The conduct of these Defendants was deliberate, unlawful, and done in bad faith in the exercise of their public functions, The Plaintiffs state that these Defendants were aware or were reckless as io the fact thal this conduct was walawful and likely to injure Plaintiff 1. ‘As such, the PlaintiftS state that the Defondants are tisble for misfeasance in public office, Negligence. 27. The Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff 1 to take reasonable care for his safety, which duty of case increased once Plaintiff 1 was detained by the Defendants. 28, The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff 1 to refrain from using force on his person and particularly to refrain from using excess force as they did here. 29. These Defendants also had a duty to ensure that Plaintiff 1 was assessed by medical personnel and that those medical personnel responsible for treating Plaintiff 1 were aware of the nature of the force used during the arrest and the multiple injuries suffered by Plaintiff 1 including to his arm and to his head, such that proper diagnosis and treatment of his injuries could be implemented, 30. The Defendants breached the duties of care they owed to Plaintiff 1 and are liable in negligence to the Plaintiffs, ‘The injuries they suffered arose as a direct result of the negligence of these Defendants.-10- Nervous Shock and Emotional Distress 31, The Defendants’ unlawful detention, assault and battery of Plaintiff 1 caused him to suffer nervous shock and emotional distress. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that Plaintiff | would suffer nervous shock upon hearing him scream out for help and scream out in pain, as well as on viewing his visible and stated injuries. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that their unlawful conduct in assaulting and battering Plaintiff 1 would cause nervous shock to him, 32. Plaintiff 1 continues to suffer anxiety, depression, and physical and psychological conditions arising from the unlawful and negligent conduct of these Defendants. Charter and Human Rights Violations 33. The Defendant TPSB and TPSB officers are liable for violations of Plaintit? 1° rights pursuant to sections 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by virtue of the facts sct out above, 34, Plaintiff 1 was deprived of his rights to security of the person contrary to section 7 of the Charter. 35, The detention of Plaintiff 1 by Defendant TPSB and TPSB officers was unlawful and arbitrary contrary to section 7 and 9 of the Charter. 36, Plaintiff { was not told the reason for his detention and arrest contrary to section 19(a) of the Charter, 37. Plaintiff | was profiled by the Defendant TTC fare inspectors and TPSB officers using discriminatory, racist and unreasonable criteria. ‘This racial profiling of the Plaintiff was38. He discriminatory, unlawful and in violation of the terms of the Ontario Human Rights Code, Plaintiff 1 was dotained and arrested because ho was a young black man and not for any other lawfidl ceason. us Li 39. ‘The Plaintiffs state that the Defondants TTC and TPSB are responsible for the wrongs of the Defendant Police Officers and TTC fare inspectors by virtue of section $0(1) of the Police Services Act, R.8,0. 1990, ¢.P.15 as amended and section 394 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, 8.0. 2006, c. 11, Sched, A., as amended. Negligent Supervision and Training 40. In addition, the Defendant TTC and TPSB owed a duty of cate to the Plaintiffs to ensure al, that the Defendant TPSB officers and TTC fare inspectors were properly trained for, and supervised in respect of their duties as police officers and fare inspectors. |. The Defendant TTC and TPSB breached the relevant standards of care and were negligent in supervising the Defendant police ofticers and fare inspectors. The negligent actions and/or inactions of the Defendant TTC and TPSB caused the injuries to the Plaintiffs, a consequence these Defendants knew or ought to have known would occur as a result of their negligence, Particulars of these Defendants’ negligence include the following: i, the Defendants TTC and TPSB knew or ought to have known that the Defendant police officers and fare inspectors were insufficiently trained to be dealing with the public;it ii, iv, v DAMAGES -12- the Defendants TTC and TPSB know or ought to have known that the Defendant police officers and fare inspectors suffered from psychological and/or psychiatric problems rendering them unfit to carry out their duties: the Defendants TTC and TPSB knew or ought to have known that the Defendant police officers and are inspectors were unlit to perform duties reasonably expected of ther: the Defendants TTC and TPSB failed to ensure that the Defendant police officers. and fare inspectors carried out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act and the City of Toronto Act, a8 well as The Charter and Human Rights Code. as of February 18, 2018, the Defendant TTC and TPSB knew or ought to have knowa that the Detindant police officers and fare inspectors were involved in the aforesaid incident with Plaintiff 1 and neither organization took immediate and appropriate steps to inquire and properly investigate the conduct of the Defendant police officers and fare inspectors, 42. As a direct result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff | incurced and continues to suffer from severe physical injuries, some of the particulars being: i, iti a traumatic brain injury; injuries to the upper extremities of the body, including but not limited to his head, neck and shoulder arcas: soft tissue damage to his chest and shoulder arcas; and213+ iv. post-concussion syndrome. 43. As a direct result of the unlawfut conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff 4 suffered and continues to suifer severe emotional, psychological and/or mental trauma, some of the particulars being: i, cognitive impairment; ii persistent and debilitating headaches and dizziness, iii, bhurred vision iv. depressi v. anxiety; vi. nervousness and irritability; vii, mood disorders; viii, post-traumatic stress disorder; ix. insomnia and sleep disturbances; and x. nightmares and flashbacks, 44, As a direct result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff | suffered additional damages including: 4, damages for loss of liberty, physical, emotional and mental distress and indiguity; fi, damages for loss of reputation; ili. damages for lost work and education;iv. vi vii. -14- damages for loss of dignity, discrimination, harassment, breach of his Human fights and Charter Rights; damages for the intentional infliction of mental distress: aggravated damages for the insulting, high handed, malicious and oppressive conduct; and punitive damages for the Defendants’ egregious misconduct and abuse of authority that warrants deterrence and denunciation. 45. Injuries to Plaintiff } have been and will continue to be accompanied by chronic pain, weakness, stiffness, reduced range of motion, sleep dysfunction, fatigue, diminished cnergy and reduced stamina, emotional trauma inclidiag shock, stress, anxiety and depression, psychological changes, behavioural changes and cognitive deficiencies including but not limited to memory loss, poor attention, poor concentration and poor co- ordination, 46. As a rosult of his injuries and ongoing symptoms and impairments, the ability of Plaintitt 1 to participate in his usual activitics of daily living bas been severely compromised and ‘will remain compromised for the remainder of his life. LOSS OF INCOME, 47. Asa direct rosult of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff | suffered a toss of income, and a loss of education, the particulars of which will be disclosed prior to trial.NON-PECUNIARY GENERAL DAMAGES 48, As a result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff 1, his social and recreational activities have been restricted and curtailed. His injuries have limited his abitity to porform his usual household and home maintenance activities. Plaintiff 1 will continue to be limited indefinitely and he will incur losses and expenses as a result. He has been unable (0 carry ‘on many of his normal activities of daily living and has required and will continue to sequire the assistance of others including Plaintiff 2 to provide for many of his needs, ‘TREATMENT AND CARE 49, As a further result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff 1, be has suffered severe and permanent disability and he has endmed constant and continuing pain and diseomtort as well as psychological symptoms. The lasting effects of his injuries have required him to seck medical treatment and hospitalization since the accident and will require him to continue to seck medical treatment indefinitely, and he will incur losses and expenses and suffer continuing pain and discomfort as a result. LOSS OF HOUSEKEEPING AND ROME MAINTENANCE CAPACITY 50, As a result of the negligence of the Defendants and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff | is no longer able to perform housekeeping and home maintenance chores to the extent that he ‘was able to do so before this incident and resultant injuries. Te has suffered a loss of housekeeping and home maintenance capacity and he will require ongoing assistance in the future to complete such chores.-16- SPECIAL DAMAGES 51. The Plaintiffs have incurred special damages including but not limited lo, expenses related to medication, rchabilitation, hospital accounts, x-ray accounts, doctors’ accounts, iransportati n, housekeeping, personal effects and other related expenses, particulars of which will be provided prior to trial, FAMILY LAW ACT CLAIMS: 52, Pleintiéf 2 brings this action pursvant to the provisions of the Family Law Act, and claims as follows: toss of guidance, care and companionship which she might reasonably have ‘expected to have reecived from her son, Plaintiff 1 had the loss not occurred; and ii. care, nursing, housekeeping and other scrvices for Plaintiff 1, and loss of income while providing those services. 53, Plaintiff 2 has incurred medical, and other out-of-pocket expenses, and a loss of income, {the full particulars of which will be provided priot to trial. 54. As a direct result of the actions of the Defendants against Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2 suffered and continues to suffer emotional, psychological and/or mental trauma. These injuries are a consequence which the Defendants knew or ought to have known would result from their wrongful conduct.o17- AGGRAVATED AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES 55, By reason of the facts set out herein, and in particular the high handed, shocking, contemptuous conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs claim exemplary, aggravated and/or punitive damages, further particulars of which will be provided in advance of trial. APPLICABLE STATUTES. 56. The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon the Negligence Aci, R.3.0. 1990, ¢. N. | as amended, the Police Services Act, R.8.0. 1990, e. P. 15 as amended and the regulations thereunder, the City of Toronto Act, 2006, 8.0, 2006, ¢, 11, Sched. A., as amended and the By-Laws and regulations thereunder, the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the terms of the Ontario Human Rights Code. PLACE OF TRIAL 57. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried in the City of Toronto. March 29, 2018 SCHER LAW PC Barristers & Solicitors 175 Bloor Street East South Tower, Suite 1803 ‘Toronto. ON M4W 3R8 Hugh R, Scher LSUC No.: 36906T Tel: (416) 515-9686 Fax: (416) 969-1815, David ShelInatt LSUC No.: 64228W Tel: (416) 969-1810 Fax: (416) 969-1815 Solicitors for the Plaintiffscu 18 SIFIGA Court File No. JOHN DOE ET AL. Ye TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION ET AL. Plaintiffs Defendants ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, Proceeding commenced at TORONTO STATEMENT OF CLAIM Scher Law PC Barristers & Solicitors 175 Bloor Street East South Tower, Suite 1803 ‘Toronto, ON M4W 3R8 Hugh R. Scher LSUC No.: 369067 ‘Tel. (416) 515-9686 Fax. (416) 969-1815 David Shellnutt LSUCNo.: 64228W ‘Tel: (416) 969-1810 (416) 969-1815, rs for the Plaintiffs