|
Evidence - Police Complaints. 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 applies the statutory evidentiary bar on police complaint investigation documentation:C. Admissibility of the Police Complaint Report
(i) The Error
[24] As noted earlier, the respondent’s complaint about Cst. Stoyko resulted in an internal investigation and the creation of a report which the appellant tendered in evidence. At trial, counsel for the appellants objected on the basis that the admission of the report was preclude by s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, which provides:83. (8) No document prepared as the result of a complaint made under this Part is admissible in a civil proceeding, except at a hearing held under this Part. The trial judge dismissed the objection because in his view, s. 83(8) only applied to civil proceedings in which police officers or a police service are parties.
[25] The Police Services Act was repealed on April 1, 2024, prior to the trial. However, the legislation replacing it, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, also has prohibitions against the admission of such documents in civil proceedings (s. 213(3)), including documents prepared in relation to complaints under the old legislation (s. 217(7)).
[26] As counsel for the respondent acknowledges, there is nothing in either the new or old legislative provision that supports the trial judge’s conclusion that they apply only to proceedings where police officers or a police service are parties. The report was not admissible and the trial judge erred in concluding otherwise.
|
