Court File No.: 07-CV-330435PD2 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ANDRE GRAVELLE Plaintiff and THE HAMILTON POLICE SERVICES BOARD, KENNETH D. ROBERTSON, BRIAN MULLEN, STEVEN HRAB, DON FORGAN, MARY SULLIVAN, STAN MAREK, BARRY MILLAR, MIKE WEBBER, IAN MATHEWS, RICHARD WILLS, EDWARD HALL, J.M.RIDOS, and JESSICA MARGARET ANNE REES Defendants STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS, HAMILTON POLICE SERVICES BOARD, KENNETH D. ROBERTSON, BRIAN MULLAN (INCORRECTLY NAMED BRIAN MULLEN), STEVEN HRAB, DON FORGAN, MARY SULLIVAN, STAN MAREK, BARRY MILLAR, MIKE WEBBER, IAN MATHEWS, RICHARD WILLS, EDWARD HALL, and J.M. RIDOS TO THE FRESH AS AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1, The defendants, Hamilton Police Services Board, Kenneth D. Robertson, Brian Mullan (incorrectly named Brian Mullen), Steven Hrab, Don Forgan, Mary Sullivan, Stan Marek, Barry Millar, Mike Webber, lan Mathews, Richard Wills, Edward Hall, and J.M. Ridos admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34 through 38, 45, 49, 52, 53, and 56 of the fresh as amended statement of claim.2. The defendants pleading deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 through 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 39 through 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57 through 76, and 78 of the fresh as amended statement of claim. 3. The defendants pleading have no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the fresh as amended statement of claim. 4. The defendants pleading admit that the defendants referred to in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 through 14 inclusive, of the fresh as amended statement of claim were at all material times police officers acting in the course of their duties as members of the Hamilton Police Service. 5. The defendants pleading specifically deny that the defendants, lan Mathews and Richard Wills were part of the team of officers with the Hamilton Police Service who were involved in the investigation of the Gilbank homicides, nor did the defendant, Richard Wills oversee those investigations.6. The defendants pleading further allege and the fact is that the balance of the allegations in paragraph 12 and also the allegations in paragraph 25 of the fresh as amended statement of claim are irrelevant and/or scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and have been inserted for the purpose of atmosphere and ought to be struck. In this regard, these defendants plead and rely upon subrules 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. The defendants pleading allege and the fact is that at all material times, the members of the Hamilton Police Service who were involved in the investigation of the Gilbank homicides performed their duties conscientiously and properly and therefore, they are not liable for any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff 8. The defendants pleading further allege and the fact is that the aforementioned defendants at all material times acted in good faith and upon reasonable and probable grounds with the belief that the plaintiff had committed the criminal offences, as alleged. 9, The defendants pleading allege and the fact is that at all material times, members of the Hamilton Police Service were acting pursuant to the authority Provided in section 25 of the Criminal Code as well as the provisions set out in section 42 of the Police Services Act.10. The defendants pleading deny that the plaintiff has sustained the injuries or damages as alleged and in any event, the damages claimed are excessive and too remote. Further, the plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 11. The defendants pleading allege and the fact is that at all material times, members of the Hamilton Police Service acted reasonably and properly and accordingly, there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim for punitive and aggravated or exemplary damages. 12. The defendants pleading allege and the fact is that insufficient particulars of unliquidated damages have been provided to them either prior to the commencement of litigation or within the fresh as amended statement of claim and accordingly, they respectfully request that this honourable court disallow any claim for prejudgment interest on any amounts which may be awarded to the plaintiff 13. The defendants pleading allege and the fact is that the interest of justice makes it desirable that the trial of this action be held in the city of Hamilton. 14. The defendants pleading therefore submit that this action be dismissed as against them, with costs. August 23, 2011TO: AND TO: CITY OF HAMILTON Legal Services Division 21 King Street West, 12" Floor HAMILTON, Ontario L8P 4W7 Paul F. Ryan, LSUC No.: 214541 Tel: (905) 546-2424 ext. 4198 Fax: (905) 546-4370 Lawyers for the defendants, Hamilton Police Services Board, Kenneth D. Robertson, Brian Mullan, Steven Hrab, Don Forgan, Mary Sullivan, ‘Stan Marek, Barry Millar, Mike Webber, lan Mathews, Richard Wills, Edward Hall and J.M. Ridos ‘STEIN LAW OFFICE, 330 Bay Street, Suite 820, TORONTO, Ontario MSH 4C7 Andrew Stein, LSUC No.: 32065K Tel: (416) 642-2020 Fax: (416) 203-9456 Lawyers for the plaintiff Jessica Margaret Anne Reessoply WT pue jjeH PIEMPS “SII pueUd!gy ‘smayjeW UE] Yaqqayy oxi “up| Aueg xeueW URS ‘uenting Arey ‘ueB104 uoq “qeaH wanes ‘ue|ny UeLg ‘uoseqoy “q yrouuay, ‘pleog SadIMeg adlj0g UOyIWeEH “sluepuajap ayy 104 siekme | IvSbLZ ON ONST ueky “4 ined OLEr-9pS-(G06) xe4 861 x9 beve-97S(G0B) “1eL ZMv d81_ NO ‘NOLTINVH 400|4 2b ISOM ANS Bury 1Z uoisinig seowieg [e607 NOLINVH 40 ALIO WED JO JUOWIA}E}S: papuauy se Yysoij ay) OL 3ON34AG JO LNSWALVLS QUOI | Je PaouaUNWOS Bulpeedosq AOLLSAP JO LYNOD HOINadNS OlNVLNO. ZAdSEPOEE-AD-L0 ON AII4 HNOD sjuepuejeq le 18 GUVOE SIOINNAS JONMOd NOLUWWH SHL pue MAUIEId, ATISAVYS SYONY