In the case of Souccar v. Pathmasiri, rendered on June 11, the Quebec Superior Court was called upon to decide on a civil liability claim regarding an allegedly abusive arrest and detention. The dispute arose from a condominium disagreement concerning the installation of windows.
Police Intervention
In July 2016, window installers hired by the condominium syndicate arrived at the plaintiffs’ residence to replace several windows. The plaintiff objected to the installation of one of the windows and prevented both the window installers and the syndicate’s representative from leaving her condo unit. As a result, the police were called to intervene.
In the presence of the officers, the plaintiff physically restrained one of the window installer to stop him from completing the installation. She was subsequently arrested for forcible confinement and obstruction of police work. Although criminal charges were filed, they were later withdrawn by the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (the “DCPP“).
A Lawful Arrest, According to the Court
The plaintiffs alleged that the arrest was unjustified, the detention unlawful, and that excessive force was used. They also sued the civilians who had contacted the police.
The Court reiterated that the absence of a criminal conviction is not sufficient to establish police liability. It must be shown that the officers deviated significantly from the conduct expected of a reasonable and diligent police officer in similar circumstances. In this case, the police had reasonable grounds to proceed with the arrest, and their actions met the expected standard.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the DCPP’s decision to withdraw the charges does not render the initial arrest illegal. Since the detention was short and directly followed the lawful arrest, it was also justified.
The Court pointed out that police officers can only be held liable for criminal charges if they knowingly provide false information to the DCPP or act unreasonably. In this case, the report submitted to the DCPP accurately reflected the facts, and since the decision to lay or withdraw charges lies solely with the DCPP, no fault could be attributed to the officers.
No Excessive Use of Force
With respect to the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff during her arrest, the Court found them to be superficial and the result of her own resistance to arrest. There was no evidence to suggest that the police used excessive force.
No Fault by Civilian Complainants
The claims against the civilians who had contacted the police were also dismissed—and were even characterized by the Court as abusive. The Court emphasized the importance, in a just legal system, of allowing individuals to report potentially criminal conduct without fear of reprisal or civil liability.
