|
Criminal - Justified Force. Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada
In Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court partially allowed a multiple defendants' Small Claims Court appeal, that brought against joint and several orders for "$15,000.00 in damages for intrusion upon seclusion, $2,000 for trespass, and $10,000 in punitive damages, this against a "condominium corporation, the management company and the security company".
Here the court considers the defendant security company's argument that it's employee was entitled to assume that the condo property manager and police were acting lawfully wrt the entry:(iii) Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code
[58] Paragon relies on Park v. British Columbia, 2012 BCPC 109, 292 C.C.C. (3d) 33, an action for assault and battery against two security guards who had assisted the police in effecting an arrest that was found to have been unlawful. Although the police officers were found to be liable, the court dismissed the action against the security guards on the basis that they were “entitled to rely on an assumption that the police were acting lawfully in the execution of their duty” (at para. 136). In coming to this conclusion, the court expressly relied on s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which provides as follows:25.(1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer; or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose. [59] The appellant Paragon did not rely on s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code in its pleadings or in submissions. In any event, the defence provided by s. 25(1) is more limited than the appellant suggests. As was explained in Hudson v. Brantford Police Services Board (2001), 2001 CanLII 8594 (ON CA), 204 D.L.R. (4th) 645 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 24, it protects individuals from civil liability for reasonable mistakes of fact, but not reasonable mistakes of law, such as authority to commit a trespass. See also Figueiras v. Toronto (City) Police Services Board, 2015 ONCA 208, 124 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 147-148. As discussed earlier, the trial judge’s findings of fact preclude a mistake of fact defence.
|
