Want to become Manitoba's next millionaire? Play Winnipeg's litigation lottery!
No trial is without its surprises while taking on its own personality along the way. This one is no exception.
Alex Chapman's (of Douglas Inquiry fame) is no exception. He's suing the City and its police department for $5.5 million for alleged assault and false arrest that date back to January of 2002. It's a rare civil trial by judge and jury (6) about which CyberSmokeBlog will have more to say shortly. Justice Herbert Rempel of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench presiding.
Since the file resided with Justice Rempel during the trial, a special thank you to counsel for the Defence for allowing CSB to reproduce its copy of the Statements of Claim and Defence. Here they are stripped of the preamble adn legalese - the bare Bones.
Plaintiff: Alexander Chapman
Defendants: Chief of the Winnipeg Police Service, Ian Christopher Hinds, Velvetina Brown, Constables J. Kapka, K. Azaransky, J. Contrad and T. Michalinik
Statement of Claim
An amended version was filed September 8, 2008
1. The plaintiff claims:
a. general damages
b. punitive damages
c. special damages in an amount to be assessed; and
d. solicitor and client costs
2. The plaintiff, a Network Systems Manager, resided at 30 Elm Grove Way in Winnipeg, Manitoba ("the dwelling") in January, 2002.
3. The defendants Constable J. KAPKA, Constable K. AZARANSKY, Constable J. CONRAD, and Constable T. MICHALIK are constables of the Winnipeg Police Service.
4. The defendant THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE is liable for the torts committed by the other defendant members of the Winnipeg Police Service by virtue of the provisions contained in The Provincial Police Act.
5. The plaintiff was married to and in January 2002 resided with Wendy Janice Chapman at 30 Elm Grove Drive in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
6. VELVETINA BROWNE is the mother of Wendy Janice Chapman.
7. IAN CHRISTOPHER HINDS is the nephew of Wendy Janice Chapman.
8. The plaintiff was 35 years of age, university educated, professionally employed and has no criminal record.
9. As a result of an arrest for assault against Wendy Janice Chapman, the plaintiff initiated civil proceedings on January 14, 2002 in Court of Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre Suit No. C102-01-26273 against THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE and two constables of the Winnipeg Police Service for arbitrary detention and false imprisonment.
10. A copy of the statement of claim CI02-01-26273 was delivered via fax to counsel for the defendant THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE on January 14, 2002.
11.Late in the evening of January 18, 2002, the plaintiff and Wendy Janice Chapman got into an argument over Wendy Janice Chapman's cancellation of the telephone service to the dwelling.
12. Wendy Janice Chapman was in a rage.
13. The plaintiff feared that he would be the subject of a further false arrest and contacted the police to alert them to the fact that Wendy Janice Chapman was irrational and that there may be a further false complaint.
14. Wendy Janice Chapman arrived home, settled down and eventually went to sleep.
15. The defendants HINDS and BROWNE arrived a short while later.
16. From his basement office, the plaintiff overheard HINDS and BROWNE speaking maliciously of him. He went upstairs and asked them to leave.
17.HINDS and BROWNE refused to leave while BROWNE began yelling at the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff showed the defendant HINDS the way out, but Wendy Janice Chapman let him back into the house.
19. The defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman were all yelling at the plaintiff.
20. The plaintiff made several calls to 911 and the police non-emergency line to seek the assistance of the police in removing HINDS and BROWNE from the dwelling.
21. The defendant HINDS threatened the plaintiff by saying that he would contact his father to "work you over."
22. At that time, Wendy Janice Chapman experienced a panic attack and began screaming.
23. The plaintiff contacted the Winnipeg Police Service for assistance.
24. The plaintiff told the defendants BROWNE and HINDS that everyone would get hurt if it were necessary for the police to remove them since their names would be permanently recorded on the police computer.
25. The defendant BROWNE told the plaintiff that she didn't care because it was her house and that she would only leave upon delivery of $27,000.from the plaintiff.
26.The defendant HINDS' father Lionel arrived and also commenced yelling at the plaintiff.
27. The plaintiff then locked himself in the master bedroom pending the arrival of the police.
28. Shortly after the arrival of the defendants Constable J. KAPA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY, the defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Windy Janice Chapman falsely accused the plaintiff of the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to them.
29. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZAZANSKY proceeded to falsely arrest the plaintiff for the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm without any further investigation.
30. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY acted as agents for and at the direction of the defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman.
31. The plaintiff was only released from custody on his undertaking, among other things, not to have contact or communication with the defendants KINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman and not to reside or attend at his own dwelling.
32. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY did not believe and did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the plaintiff committed the offence of threats to cause death or bodily harm to the defendants BROWNE, HINDS or Wendy Janice Chapman.
33. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY then caused a criminal prosecution to be brought against the plaintiff for the offence of uttering threat to kill or cause bodily harm to the defendants BROWNE and HINDS and Wendy Janice Chapman (the first criminal prosecution).
34. On June 2, 2002, the defendant BROWNE falsely reported to the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK that the plaintiff had telephoned her at 2:00 a.m. and told her "You had better pray for your daughter."
35. At 5:29 a.m. on June 2, 2002, the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK, without undertaking any investigation or first obtaining a warrant, proceeded to locate and falsely arrest the plaintiff at his dwelling.
36. The defendants Constable J.CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK acted as agents for and at the direction of the defendant BROWNE.
37. The defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK did not believe nor did they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the plaintiff committed the offence of breaching his recognizance by contacting the defendant BROWNE.
38. The defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK initiated prosecution of the plaintiff for the offence of breach of recognizance. (the second prosecution)
39,. Both criminal prosecutions terminated in the plaintiff's favour when the Crown Attorney directed a stay of proceedings with respect to them on or about February 21, 2003.
40. The criminal prosecutions were malicious because:
a. Constable J. KAPKA and Constable K. AZARANSKY, Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK acted with reckless indifference as to the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff
b. The arrests and prosecutions of the plaintiff were initiated by the defendant BROWNE for the purpose of extorting a financial advantage from the plaintiff for herself and her daughter Wendy Janice Chapman;
c. The arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 was initiated by the defendant HINDS to divert attention from his criminal threat to incite his father to cause bodily harm to the plaintiff;
d. The arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 was initiated by Wendy Janice Chapman to gain advantage in matrimonial proceedings to preserve her occupancy of the
marital home and out of anger to the plaintiff;
e. The criminal prosecutions were brought by Constable J. KAPKA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY in retaliation for the plaintiff's claim in Court of Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre Suit No. CI02-01-26273.
41. The defendants BROWNE and HINDS and Wendy Janice Chapman conspired and agreed, one with the other, to procure the false arrest and malicious prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 and did thereby commit the tort of conspiracy.
42. In the premises, the defendants Constable J. KAPKA, Constable K. AZARANSKY, and THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE, are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.
43. In the premises, the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK, and THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE, are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of false imprisonment and arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.
44. In the premises, the defendants HINDS and BROWNE are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of conspiracy, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
45. As a result of the conspiracy, false imprisonment, arbitrary detention, and malicious prosecution
aforesaid the plaintiff suffered loss and damage and;
a. Suffered embarrassment, humiliation and great emotional strain;
b. Was denied legal access to his dwelling for an extended period of time causing great hardship and providing Wendy Janice Chapman with the opportunity to unlawfully dispose of his personal property; and
c. Was put to expense in legal fees to defend the criminal prosecutions.
46. The arrests and prosecutions of the plaintiff were carried out by the defendants Constable J. KAPKA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY despite the fact that an action for false arrest and arbitrary detention was already pending against the CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE and others for a prior false arrest of the same plaintiff.
47. As such, the conduct of Constable J KAPKA and Constable K. AZARANSKY was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional, as well as malicious. It warrants a denunciatory award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the Winnipeg Police Service from such conduct.
48. As such, the conduct of Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional. It warrants a denunciatory award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the Winnipeg Police Service from such conduct.
Dated March 14, 2003
DOWNTOWN LEGAL ACTION
586 Broadway
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 0W5
(204) 779-5741
R. Ian Histed
Solicitor for the Plaintiff
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 4:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home