Alleged racial profiling, ignored evidence and maliciously laid charges are at the heart of a lawsuit filed against Guelph police.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed earlier this month by a Guelph man arrested for impaired driving in 2022, following what the court filing describes as a case of mistaken identity, road rage-inspired assault against him at a local Tim Hortons.
“The Guelph police department actions depart from what the public expects of proper policing, and they were discriminatory motives; the plaintiff states that this case possesses enough facts about foul play from the police department, and immediate actions are needed to be taken, as this is a matter of systemic failure,” reads the statement of claim.
“The plaintiff … hopes this matter sets a national precedent that could affect all Canadians with positive changes on systemic discrimination and racial profiling.”
None of the lawsuit’s allegations have been tested or proven in court.
Efforts to reach a spokesperson for Guelph Police Service (GPS) weren’t immediately successful. A statement of defence has not been filed in the matter.
In the past, the department has declined to comment on matters that are before the court.
The lawsuit names GPS, deputy chief Daryl Goetz, a staff sergeant and two constables as defendants.
Charges against the plaintiff were stayed by the court in November as a result of “unreasonable delay,” the lawsuit states. “In her ruling, Justice Kennedy J. raised serious concerns about the (Guelph police’s) failure to investigate, destruction of evidence, and Charter breaches. She noted the gravity of these issues and how they would have affected the plaintiff’s trial if it had proceeded.”
Police arrested a then-35-year-old Black man after being called to investigate an ongoing assault at the Tim Hortons on Victoria Road North, at Woodlawn Road. It was reported three white men were beating the plaintiff.
“Despite arriving while the assault was still in progress and captured on (the officer’s) body-worn camera, (police) failed to secure the crime scene, preserve evidence, or interview the reporting supervisor. Instead, (the officer) arrested the plaintiff based on unfounded claims by the aggressors that the plaintiff was a ‘drunk driver,’” the lawsuit claims.
“At the plaintiff’s criminal trial, (the arresting officer) admitted that this was his first impaired driving arrest and that he was inexperienced. Despite this, he refused assistance from experienced officers, as evidenced by body-worn camera recordings.”
The lawsuit claims police failed to collect witness statements and video evidence of the assault.
“The defendants prioritized protecting the aggressors over fulfilling their legal obligation to ensure a thorough investigation,” it states. “False statements and procedural abuses were employed to secure charges against the plaintiff while shielding the actual perpetrators. The plaintiff was the victim and still was denied the right to discovery of evidence because such a discovery would put states main witnesses in trouble for having misled police, making false statements in the 911, and maintaining lies even when they know they attacked a wrong person after missing the car, which they engaged (within in a) road raged race.”
Police issued a news release about three months after the incident asking for witnesses to come forward.
During the alleged assault, the plaintiff reportedly sustained a variety of “severe injuries,” including hematoma, concussion, a dislocated shoulder and more, resulting in two days of hospitalization.
“Despite the plaintiff’s repeated requests, the defendants refused to investigate the assault and labelled him a liar,” the lawsuit claims. “ The plaintiff was forced to initiate a private prosecution to address the assault. Charges were eventually laid against two aggressors, but critical video evidence was irretrievably lost due to the defendants’ failure to secure surveillance footage from Tim Hortons within the retention period.
“The destruction of surveillance footage prejudiced the plaintiff’s case and limited the Crown’s ability to pursue serious charges against the aggressors, such as aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm. As a result, the aggressors received minimal consequences and were offered a peace bond during their trial.”
