Court File No.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HOLLY DRISCOLL, MARYA FOLINSBEE, AMELIA HERMAN, BRIAN JEFFREY, WILLIAM LAPENOTIERE, ALICIA RIDGE, and DEVON RIDGE Plaintiffs and (Court seal) THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD Defendant STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiffs lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM, and $1000 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiffs claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court. Date ..................................................... Address of court office ..................................................................... ............................................................... TO The Toronto Police Services Board Chair Alok Mukherjee 40 College Street Toronto Ontario M5G 2J3 Issued by............................................. Local registrar

CLAIM

1. a)

The Plaintiffs claim: General damages in the amount of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,400,000) for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, sexual assault, intimidation, misfeasance of public office, negligent investigation, invasion of privacy, and malicious prosecution against the Plaintiffs;

b)

In addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,400,000) for breach of the Plaintiffs rights under sections 2, 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b) and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter);

c)

In addition, and/or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000);

d)

Special damages for the Plaintiffs loss of time, and interruption in business and routine of life;

e) f)

Out-of-pocket expenses incurred, details of which will be provided at trial; Costs on a solicitor and client basis, including or in addition to costs for disbursements, counsel fee, inconvenience and expense, and any other costs pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g)

Pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128;

h)

Post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 129; and

i)

Such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded.

The Parties 2. The Plaintiffs are: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) 3. 4. Holly Driscoll (Driscoll), a 22 year old woman; Marya Folinsbee (Folinsbee), a 27 year old woman; Amelia Herman (Herman), a 25 year old woman; Brian Jeffrey (Jeffrey), a 24 year old man; William LaPenotiere (LaPenotiere), a 29 year old man; Alicia Ridge , a 27 year old woman; and Devon Ridge, a 27 year old woman.

All Plaintiffs generally reside in the City of Hamilton, Ontario. The Defendant Toronto Police Services Board was at all material times the employer of all police officers in the Toronto Police Service (TPS) and, as such, is vicariously liable for the claims of the Plaintiff pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Police Services Act, RSP 1990, C. p. 15.

Background 5. On June 26 and 27, 2010, the Group of 20 (G20) summit took place in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The G20 summit was met with varied protests. 6. Security for the summit was coordinated primarily by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Peel 4

Regional Police, and the TPS. A great fence was constructed around the area where the meetings of G20 officials were to take place. The TPS, as the police service of local jurisdiction, was primarily responsible for policing the area outside of the fence. Senior TPS officers coordinated the actions of their police force from the Major Incident Command Centre (MICC), located at TPS Headquarters at 40 College Street, in the City of Toronto. 7. During the G20 summit, during the afternoon of Saturday, June 26, 2010, a small number of protestors, sometimes referred to as the black bloc, engaged in acts of vandalism and damaged property including storefront windows and police vehicles. 8. Senior TPS officers were frustrated that front line officers were not able to stop the vandalism. At approximately 5 p.m. on June 26, 2010, senior TPS officers including the Chief of Police William Blair, Deputy Chief Tony Warr, Superintendent Mark Fenton, and Superintendent Hugh Ferguson met, and thereafter gave orders or authorized more assertive and aggressive police tactics. After this meeting, senior TPS commanders used inflammatory and excessive language when giving orders to subordinate officers encouraging them to take back the streets and referring to vandals as terrorists. Senior TPS command created a climate within the TPS of hostility towards peaceful protestors and reckless disregard for the rights of people to engage in activities that are protected by law, and specifically s. 2 of the Charter. 9. On the morning of Sunday, June 27, 2010, senior TPS officers met at the MICC for a briefing and were given instructions. These instructions were passed down to mid-level officers who then briefed front-line officers before they went on shift for the day. Many of these front line officers believed that they were given orders to search, detain and arrest people who fit a protestor profile which included, but is not limited to, having the following traits: possessing bandanas, goggles, a gas mask, wearing black, having tattoos, carrying a back pack, or having a lawyers number written on their arm. The result was widespread unlawful searches, arbitrary detentions and false arrests. 5

10. The Plaintiffs participated in peaceful protests during the summit. The Plaintiffs acted lawfully at all times during the protests and expressed themselves in a manner consistent with rights protected under s. 2 of the Charter.

Cause of Action Allan Gardens Incident 11. At approximately 2:45 p.m., on June 27, 2010, the Plaintiffs had gathered in Allan Gardens, a City of Toronto public park located on the south side of Carlton Street, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street. At this time, the Plaintiffs were not protesting. The park was calm and there were no significant activities taking place. The Plaintiffs were resting and making plans to eat then leave Toronto and return to Hamilton. 12. The Plaintiffs were approached by Constable Hu, badge #9708, and Constable Kazzouh, badge #9596, who began to question the Plaintiffs. The two officers then demanded to search the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs individually told the police officers that they did not consent to being searched or detained. More officers arrived at the scene including Constable Drake, badge #9176, and Constable Ladurantaye, badge #10272. 13. A number of TPS officers took hold of Jeffrey and pushed him up against a police vehicle. Police officers searched into the pockets of Jeffrey and LaPenotiere. Jeffrey was told by police that there were special laws because of the G20. The bags of all of the Plaintiffs except Herman were searched. Police confiscated a small art tool from Folinsbee, and first aid supplies from Alicia Ridge. 14. The Plaintiffs were ordered to leave the park by TPS officers. The Plaintiffs did not want to leave the park, but they complied with the order. A number of TPS officers

followed the Plaintiffs as they left the park and made insulting and malicious comments. 15. The Plaintiffs, except for Herman, were unlawfully detained and unlawfully searched. The detentions were arbitrary and contrary to s. 9 of the Charter. The searches unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 16. The Plaintiffs were, except for Herman, detained and were not given any reason, contrary to s. 10(a) of the Charter. 17. The TPS officers at the scene did not have lawful authority to order the Plaintiffs to leave the park. The Plaintiffs complied with this unlawful order and were forced under duress to leave Allan Gardens. The Plaintiffs believed that they would be arrested or further detained if they did not leave the park. The Plaintiffs were intimidated.

Arrest of the Plaintiffs at Amato Pizza 18. The Plaintiffs decided to have lunch at Amato Pizza, located at 429 Yonge Street. The Plaintiffs entered the restaurant, purchased food, and took some time to eat. At approximately 3:30 p.m., as the Plaintiffs were leaving, two or more unmarked vans filled with TPS officers pulled up very suddenly in front of the restaurant. Approximately 10 to 15 police officers got out of the vans and quickly approached the Plaintiffs. 19. TPS officers at the scene and involved in the arrests of the Plaintiffs were: a) Sergeant Norman Proctor, badge #1427 (Proctor); b) Constable James Ure, badge #863 (Ure); c) Constable Stephen Bouwmeester, badge #9166 (Bouwmeester); d) Constable James Arp, badge #6445 (Arp); e) Constable Scott Jackson, badge #9301; f) Constable James Martin, badge #9535; 7

g) Constable Cornelia Grigat, badge #9705; h) Constable Jackson, badge #9301; i) Detective Constable Derek Lee, badge #1070; and 20. Proctor appeared to be in charge of the police action. 21. The Plaintiffs were immediately detained and shortly thereafter arrested by TPS officers prior to being searched. The Plaintiffs were searched incident to an unlawful arrest. 22. The search of the Plaintiffs was not based on reasonable grounds and was unlawful and unreasonable, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 23. The detention of the Plaintiffs was unlawful and arbitrary, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter. 24. The Plaintiffs were profiled by these front line officers as per the unlawful instructions of senior TPS officers. The Plaintiffs were searched and then arrested because they appeared to be protestors and not for any other lawful reason, contrary to s. 2 of the Charter. 25. The Plaintiffs were profiled by police using discriminatory, sexist, and unreasonable criteria. The profiling of the Plaintiffs was unlawful and contrary to ss. 2, 7, and 15 of the Charter. 26. During the search police found items that are lawful to possess, and in the circumstances, could not form a reasonable basis to believe that the Plaintiffs had, or were about to commit a criminal offence. Prior to the G20 it was widely circulated on activist web sites that protestors should bring protective gear to the G20 protests including earplugs, scarves, mouth covers, and first aid kits. TPS officers found such items incident to an unlawful search.

27. The Plaintiffs were told that they were under arrest. The Plaintiffs were made to sit on the ground and their hands were restrained to the back using plastic flex cuffs. 28. The Plaintiffs were detained, searched, and arrested for a malicious and unlawful purpose. 29. The Plaintiffs were maliciously prosecuted. 30. Section 495 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (the Criminal Code) states that a peace officer may arrest without warrant: a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence; or b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence

31. In the circumstances, there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiffs had or were about to commit an indictable offence. The Plaintiffs were not found committing a criminal offence. There were no grounds to arrest the Plaintiffs under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code. 32. The Plaintiffs were falsely arrested. 33. The Plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and arbitrarily detained contrary to ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter. 34. In the circumstances, it was clear that the Plaintiffs had committed no offence and the officers who arrested the Plaintiffs were negligent in their investigation. 35. All of the Plaintiffs vigorously expressed that they did not consent to being searched, detained or arrested.

36. The Plaintiffs were given inconsistent and conflicting reasons for their arrest. Folinsbee, Driscoll, and Jeffrey were told that they were under arrest for participating or membership in a criminal organization. Herman was told that she was under arrest for involvement in gang activity. LaPenotiere asked why he was under arrest and was told by a police officer that they would find a reason or that they would make one up. Alicia Ridge was not given any reason. Devon Ridge was told that she was under arrest for breach of the peace. The specific reason for the arrest was never made clear. The Plaintiffs did not understand the reason for the arrest. It appeared the police did not understand the reason for arrest. 37. The Plaintiffs were not told the reason for their detention and arrest, contrary to s. 10(a) of the Charter. 38. Driscoll, Folinsbee, Herman, and Devon Ridge were all searched by male officers. These women were subjected to frisk-style searches. They were made to stand with the legs apart and then a male officer would run his hands up and down the legs, on the inside of their legs and close to crotches, and along their sides near their breasts, and over their stomachs. These searches should have been conducted by female officers. Female officers were present at the scene. TPS policy requires that, absent exigent circumstances, all searches shall be conducted by police officers of the same sex. There were no exigent circumstances that would justify male officers searching female arrestees. 39. The searches were unreasonable and unlawful, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 40. Arp searched Folinsbee and seized her mobile phone. Arp searched the contents of the phone and he viewed private photographs and text messages. Arp did not have a warrant or other lawful authority to search the phone and the search of the phone was unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 41. Alicia Ridge was searched by Proctor. Proctor ordered Alicia Ridge to stand with her legs apart. Proctor ran his hands up the inside of her legs and close to her 10

crotch. Proctor ran his hands along the front of her pants and then firmly grabbed her right buttock. Proctor smiled as he did this. Proctor commented that he thought Alicia Ridge was attractive. Proctor cut Alicia Ridges waste wallet off with a knife, bringing the knife close to her abdomen. Ridge was terrified and distressed by this search and assault. 42. Proctors search of Alicia Ridge was excessive and unnecessary and should have been done by a female officer. The search was unreasonable and unlawful and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. Proctor sexually assaulted Alicia Ridge. Proctor committed the criminal offense of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code. 43. Proctor deliberately and knowingly assaulted Alicia Ridge and took advantage of her while he was in position of authority. Proctor knew that his conduct was unlawful and likely to injure Alicia Ridge. Proctor committed the tort of misfeasance in public office. 44. The searches of the female Plaintiffs were abusive and carried out for a malicious purpose and meant to intimidate and cause fear. Considering all the circumstances, the searches amount to an assault and battery. 45. All of the Plaintiffs were searched incident to an unlawful arrest and therefore the searches were also unlawful and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 46. During the arrests and subsequent searches, the Plaintiffs, and especially the women, were subjected to police behaviour that would best be described as bullying and abusive and meant to degrade, frighten and intimidate. 47. Many of the arresting police officers made abusive and oppressive comments. Specifically, Proctor, Bouwmeester, and Ure appeared to take pleasure at tormenting and abusing the Plaintiffs. TPS officers made comments that were profane, sexist, and homophobic in the extreme. TPS officers threatened to 11

assault and harm the Plaintiffs. TPS officers called to the crowd of onlookers that had gathered nearby and encouraged people to take photographs of the Plaintiffs. 48. The oppressive comments caused the Plaintiffs to fear for their safety amount to an assault in law and a violation of s. 7 of the Charter. 49. The oppressive comments were discriminatory and contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. 50. One police officer made abusive comments about Devon Ridges name and appearance. The officer asked her if she was a man or a woman. In the circumstances, no reasonable person would seriously ask this question. This officer threatened to mark on her arrest sheet that she was transgendered. These comments were sexist and discriminatory and contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. These comments were made for a malicious purpose with the intent to threaten and intimidate Devon Ridge. These comments caused Devon Ridge to fear for her safety. Devon Ridge feared that she would be separated from the other female Plaintiffs. Ultimately, she was processed as a woman.

51. In the course of the arrests, each Plaintiff was made to stand next to a large erasable whiteboard and photographed by police. The sign displayed each Plaintiffs first and last names, and was clearly visible to nearby members of the public. Strangers were able to, and were encouraged to take photographs of the Plaintiffs at this time. Pictures showing some of the Plaintiffs along with their names were later posted on the internet. 52. This particular practice, of displaying arrested persons along with their names, was widespread during the G20 summit. This practice represents a failure of the TPS and individual officers to protect the privacy rights of arrested persons. This practice was unnecessary, malicious, unreasonable and a violation of the Plaintiffs right to privacy.

12

53. Some of the Plaintiffs property was seized. Devon Ridge had her glasses taken away. All of the Plaintiffs had their shoes removed. 54. The arrest and search of the Plaintiffs took approximately 45 minutes, after which the Plaintiffs were separated into male and female groups and made to walk without shoes into police prisoner transport trucks. At this time the flex cuffs were removed and standard metal handcuffs were applied. 55. At the time of arrest, none of the Plaintiffs were cautioned or informed of their rights to counsel, contrary to s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Eastern Avenue Detention Centre 56. During the G20, the TPS organized a temporary detention facility (the detention centre) at 629 Eastern Avenue in the City of Toronto. The detention centre was intended to provide a secure area for the intake and processing of prisoners arrested during the G20 summit. 57. The detention centre was administered and controlled by members of the TPS including commanding officers Superintendent Michael Farrar (Farrar), badge #6611 and Staff Inspector Frank Ruffolo (Ruffolo), badge #5783. 58. The Plaintiffs were taken to the detention centre.

The Holding Cells 59. The Plaintiffs arrived at the detention centre at approximately 5:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs handcuffs were removed and their hands were bound together in the front using flex cuffs.

13

60. Jeffrey and LaPenotiere were placed together into a large cage-style cell (a holding cell) for men. Driscoll, Folinsbee, Herman, Alicia Ridge, and Devon Ridge, were also placed into a similar large cage-style holding cell for women. 61. The exact amount of prisoners in these cells fluctuated, but the cells were overcrowded, and had up to 24 people. There were no benches to sleep and there was standing room only. The detention centre was extremely cold. The prisoners did not have shoes and the floor inside the cages was wet in some areas. Prisoners continued to arrive throughout the day and into the night. Some of the prisoners were distressed. Some were injured. Some were in a state of mental health crisis.

Holly Driscoll 62. At some point during the morning of Monday, June 27, 2010, Driscoll was taken from the holding cell. Prior to being removed from the holding cell, Driscoll had observed a number of the other female Plaintiffs crying and distressed while being led away from the strip search area. These observations caused Driscoll to be distressed and concerned for her safety. 63. Driscoll was taken to a room and questioned by three male police officers. For the first time she was cautioned and read her rights to counsel. 64. Driscoll was told that she was being charged with conspiracy to commit mischief over $5000. This was the first time that she was aware of this charge as she had been told something different by her arresting officer. 65. Driscoll was told by these officers that she would be able to speak to a lawyer, but was then lead back to a different cell and did not have access to counsel.

14

66. For some time, Driscoll was alone in this cell. At this time, she was approached by a person who did not appear to be a police officer, but rather a private investigator. Driscoll was questioned by this person without having had the opportunity to talk to a lawyer. When Driscoll insisted on her right to counsel, this person told her that she would be held in custody for a long time. 67. Sometime in the afternoon Driscoll was told that she was being released without charge. Prior to being released, Driscoll was photographed again and then handcuffed. At this time, police officers joked about changing their mind and further detaining her. A police officer also made offensive sexual comments as another officer placed Driscoll into handcuffs. Driscoll was released without shoes at approximately 5 p.m.

Marya Folinsbee 68. Folinsbee was removed from the holding cell on the morning of Monday, June 28, 2010. She was taken to a room and strip-searched by two female police officers. She was told to remove all of her clothing and made to turn around and squat. She was then taken before other police officers who cautioned her and advised her of her right to counsel. She was advised that she was being charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence. This was the first time she had been informed of this charge, and this was different than what she was told by her arresting officers. 69. She was taken to a cell and left there alone for some hours. Later on she was approached by a detective who questioned her. At this time, Folinsbee had not had an opportunity to consult with counsel and she should not have been questioned by this police officer. 70. After she was questioned, Folinsbee was able to speak briefly to a lawyer. Sometime in the afternoon she was told that she was being released without charge. 15

71. Folinsbee was released at approximately 4 p.m.

Amelia Herman 72. Herman was removed from the holding cell on the morning of Monday, June 28, 2010. She was taken with a group of women and placed into another cell. One by one, the women were taken out of the cell and none of them retuned before she was eventually selected. 73. She was taken to a small office where she was questioned, cautioned, and read her rights to counsel for the first time. From there, she was taken to a small room where she was strip searched by two female officers. These officers seized her bra. They also seized other items of clothing, including a shirt that she had previously been provided by police due to the very cold temperature in the detention centre. 74. After the strip search Herman was made to wait nearby and a male officer made rude and abusive comments about her appearance. This officer deliberately spoke loud enough to ensure that other officers could hear his comments. 75. Herman was moved to a different cell, and sometime later was taken to a phone booth in the back of the detention centre. Herman called a number which she believed was a legal support line for G20 protestors but no one answered the phone. She left a message. 76. Herman was taken back to the same cell where the above noted officer continued to make degrading comments about her appearance. Another police officer approached her cell and told her that she was being charged with conspiracy to commit mischief over $5000. This was the first time that Herman was told of this charge.

16

77. Herman removed from this cell and given an opportunity to talk to an on-site lawyer who explained that she would be held overnight and transferred to another facility. Herman was returned to the same cell and then told by police that she would be released without charge. She was released at approximately 5 p.m.

Brian Jeffrey 78. Jeffrey was removed from the holding cell at approximately 8:30 a.m. on the morning of Monday June 28, 2010, and placed into another cell with a group of men. All of these men were strip searched including Jeffrey, and then placed in solitary cages without toilets. 79. During the strip search Jeffrey was forced to squat and spread his buttocks. 80. At some point an officer informed him that he was being charged with conspiracy to commit mischief over $5000. This was the first time he was aware of this charge. 81. Jeffrey was not given an opportunity to consult with a lawyer. He did not waive this right at any time; conversely, he asserted this right many times while in custody. 82. Jeffrey was questioned twice buy police without having an opportunity to consult with a lawyer. 83. At approximately 5 p.m. Jeffrey was released without charge.

William LaPenotiere 84. LaPenotiere was removed from the holding cell at approximately 7:30 a.m. on the morning of Monday, June 28, 2010. His flex cuffs had been removed at approximately 5 a.m. but were reapplied when he was removed from the holding cell.

17

85. Jeffrey was taken to an area where there were a number of small offices and interrogated by police officers. LaPenotiere asserted his right to counsel. These officers informed LaPenotiere that he was being charged with membership in a criminal organization. He was taken to a nearby area and strip searched. During the strip search LaPenotiere was made to face backwards, bend over, and spread his buttocks. An officer conducting the strip search laughed and joked with nearby officers during the search. The flex cuffs were removed during the strip search, but were reapplied immediately afterwards. He was then put into a cell with several men and the flex cuffs were removed. 86. A man identifying himself as a detective told LaPenotiere that he was to be transferred to a jail later in the day. A different police officer came shortly thereafter and told LaPenotiere that his charges were serious and that he was going to court later in the day for a hearing. These officers give conflicting information, and the uncertainty caused LaPenotiere considerable anxiety. 87. At approximately 3:30 p.m. LaPenotiere was allowed to use a phone to call a lawyer. He was not given access to a phone book or any other resource to find a lawyers number. He was told by a police officer who was staffing the phones that he was not allowed to call the Movement Defence Committee, a free service that coordinated legal assistance for many arrested protestors during the G20. LaPenotiere was not able to procure a lawyers number and therefore was not able to consult with counsel. 88. At approximately 5:30 p.m. LaPenotiere was told by a police officer that he was going to be released. Shortly thereafter he was told by a different officer that he was going to court for a hearing. 89. LaPenotiere was released without charge at approximately 6:30 p.m. During the release procedure LaPenotiere was placed into flex cuffs. At this time he was told that police were not continuing to pursue a charge of mischief over $5,000. This

18

was the first time that he had heard police talk about this charge. Police kept his watch, jewelry, and various cards from his wallet, including his bank card. 90. In August of 2010, LaPenotiere was able to retrieve his watch and bank card, but he was told by a TPS officer that the other items were lost.

Alicia Ridge 91. Alicia Ridge was removed from the holding cell some time in the morning of Monday, June 28, 2010. She was taken to a trailer nearby the holding cell. She was afraid for her safety because she had previously been sexually assaulted by Proctor, and throughout the night she had watched as many women returned from this trailer crying and distressed. 92. She was questioned by 4 male officers including Staff Sergeant Gerald Heaney, badge #4228 (Heaney). Alicia Ridge told Heaney that she had been sexually assaulted by Proctor at the time of her arrest. Heaney asked her if she wanted to make a formal complaint at that time. She did not because she did not feel safe making a complaint while being held at the detention centre. After being released from custody, she made formal complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). 93. Alicia Ridge was then led to another area and strip searched by female officers. During the strip search she was made to remove all of her clothing and then forced to spread her legs squat/stand up 3 times. 94. She was taken to a cell and later was able to speak with a lawyer by phone. After this phone call she was moved to a different cell. Later in the day she was informed by a Detective that she would not be charged and that she would be released.

19

95. She was handcuffed again during the release procedure. She was released at approximately 5 p.m. 96. Sometime after her arrest she received a letter from the TPS stating that she could pick up her property including a gas mask and rope. At no time during the G20 did she possess such items.

Devon Ridge 97. Devon Ridge was removed from the holding cell sometime in the morning of Monday, June 28, 2010. She had been feverish and felt very ill during the night, but was afraid to ask for help. 98. She had started menstruating during the night and had to plead with officers to bring her a sanitary pad. Eventually she was given one pad and despite repeated requests, she was not given another pad while at the detention centre. 99. She was taken to a trailer and sat in a small room with three male officers. She was cautioned and read her rights to counsel for the first time. She was told that she was being charged with associating with a criminal organization. She was confused because this was very different than what she was told by arresting officers. Police were not able to provide her with any details. 100. She was taken to a strip search area. During the strip search she was made to remove all of her clothes including her underwear. The officers tossed her underwear to the ground and the sanitary pad landed face down on the floor. She was made to put her underwear on with the pad back in place. 101. She was moved to cell D6. After approximately one hour she was taken and allowed to use a phone. She tried calling a few numbers which she believed were legal support lines for protestors but nobody answered these calls. Without having talked to a lawyer, she was taken back to the same cell.

20

102. Eventually she was told that she was being released. She was told to sign some papers which indicated that she had been charged with conspiracy to commit mischief over $5000, which was again different than she had previously been informed. 103. Devon Ridge was released from the detention centre at approximately 6:00 p.m.

Strip Searches 104. Folinsbee, Herman, Jeffrey, LaPenotiere, Alicia Ridge and Devon Ridge were all strip searched. 105. Considering all the circumstances, the strip searches were unnecessary and unlawful. The strip searches were unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. 106. The strip searches were incident to false arrests and were therefore unlawful and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Food and Water 107. The Plaintiffs were denied reasonable access to food. The Plaintiffs were sporadically and haphazardly offered poor quality cheese sandwiches with white bread and very small paper cups with water or orange drink. 108. Herman was not given any food by any police officer at any time while she was at the detention centre. Folinsbee and Jeffrey were given two sandwiches while at the detention centre. Devon and Alicia Ridge were not able to eat the sandwiches because they are allergic to dairy. Driscoll was unable to to eat the sandwiches because she is lactose intolerant. LaPenotiere is vegan and had nothing to eat for the first 12 hours, until after repeated requests, he was finally provided with a 21

single orange. He was later given a 2nd orange. Driscoll and Devon Ridge gave the cheese to other prisoners and ate bread. Alicia Ridge was not able to eat any food during her time at the detention centre. 109. The Plaintiffs were denied reasonable access to water. Prisoners were provided with water in small Styrofoam cups. In the entire time at the detention centre, Driscoll was given 3 cups of orange drink. Alicia Ridge was given five half-filled cups of water. Folinsbee was given 3 or 4 cups of water. LaPenotiere and Jeffrey were given 5 or 6 half-filled cups of water. Devon Ridge was given 5 cups of water. Herman was given 5 cups of water.

Time in Custody 110. All of the Plaintiffs were held in custody for more than 24 hours and were not brought before a justice of the peace. 111. S. 503(1)(a) of the Criminal Code states: Where a justice is available within a period of 24 hours after the person has been arrested by or delivered to the peace officer, the person shall be taken before a justice without unreasonable delay and in any event within that period 112. A justice was available within a period of 24 hours after the arrest of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were not brought before a justice within 24 hours, contrary to s. 503 of the Criminal Code. The Plaintiffs were unlawfully detained and imprisoned and arbitrarily detained contrary to ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter.

22

Use of Flex Cuffs 113. The Plaintiffs were held for an unreasonable and unlawful length of time in flex cuffs. Driscoll was able to remove the flex cuffs after approximately 5 hours. She took the flex cuffs off in order to use the washroom, but kept them on until she was removed from the holding cell in the morning for fear of discipline by police. Folinsbee was in flex cuffs for approximately 16 hours. Herman was in flex cuffs for approximately 21 hours. Jeffrey was able to remove his flex cuffs after several hours at the detention centre. LaPenotiere was in flex cuffs for approximately 13 hours. Alicia Ridge and Devon ridge were in flex cuffs for approximately 15 hours. 114. Considering all the circumstances, the prolonged use of the flex cuff restraints was excessive, unnecessary and unlawful and contrary to ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. All of the Plaintiffs continued to be bound by flex cuffs even after they were frisk searched incident to arrest and walked through metal detectors upon arrival at the detention centre. 115. TPS staff were not properly trained in intended usage, safe application and removal of flex cuffs. Inspector Ruffolo was not even aware that flex cuffs were being used. There is no mention of flex cuffs is not mentioned in any planning or operational plan documents for the detention centre. 116. Flex cuffs are not designed for prolonged use. Flex cuffs do not lock into position and may continue to tighten and cause unnecessary pain and injury. In the circumstances, the use of the flex cuffs for a prolonged period was time was dangerous to the persons being restrained. 117. The Plaintiffs suffered unnecessary pain and discomfort as a result of prolonged use of flex cuffs.

23

Right to Counsel 118. All of the Plaintiffs asserted their right to counsel from the time of their arrest. All of the Plaintiffs reasserted their right to counsel at various times while in custody. The Plaintiffs did not waive their right to counsel. 119. All of the Plaintiffs were questioned by police at the point of arrest and after being removed from the initial holding cell at the detention centre. The Plaintiffs were questioned by police prior to having an opportunity to exercise their right to counsel, contrary to s. 10(b) of the Charter. 120. Driscoll, Jeffrey, LaPenotiere, and Devon Ridge were not able to talk to a lawyer at any time while in the custody of the TPS and were denied their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, contrary to s. 10(b) of the Charter.

Conditions at the Detention Centre 121. The treatment of the Plaintiffs while in the custody of the TPS was unreasonable, humiliating, degrading and for the following reasons is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in violation of s. 7 of the Charter, and amounts to cruel and unusual treatment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter: a) The Plaintiffs were arrested for a malicious reason and in the clear absence of reasonable grounds; b) The Plaintiffs were subjected to discriminatory and oppressive comments upon arrest; c) Alicia Ridge was sexually assaulted during the arrest;

24

d)

The holding cells, as well as other cells in the detention centre, had one portable toilet with no door. Some cells had no toilets. When the Plaintiffs had to use the toilet, police officers, both male and female, were able to look in. The prisoners were provided with a very small amount of toilet paper and had to constantly ask police officers for more. The Plaintiffs had to organize other prisoners to block the door of the portable toilet so that they could have very limited privacy. Many of the prisoners remained in flex cuffs and some needed assistance from others to pull their pants up after they finished using the washroom. There were no facilities to wash hands after using the toilet;

e)

Devon Ridge was menstruating while in custody and was not provided adequate provisions;

f) g)

Cells at the detention centre were overcrowded and dirty; The temperature at the detention centre was extremely cold and prisoners were not provided with adequate clothing or blankets;

h) i)

The conditions at the detention centre made it impossible to sleep; The use of flex cuffs for prolonged periods was unnecessary, excessive, and punitive;

j)

Five of the Plaintiffs were subjected to unlawful, humiliating and degrading strip searches. Insisting that Devon Ridge place a menstrual pad back into place after it had fallen on the floor during a strip search is particularly abhorrent;

k) l)

Devon Ridge was denied access to reasonable medical attention; The Plaintiffs were given contradictory and changing reasons for their arrest which caused them great anxiety;

25

m)

The Plaintiffs were denied their rights under ss. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter;

n)

The Plaintiffs were held in custody for an excessive period of time and were not brought before a justice of the peace within 24 hours as required by law;

o)

While in custody, the Plaintiffs were subjected to abusive and oppressive comments; and

p)

The Plaintiffs were denied reasonable access to food and water.

Release 122. The Plaintiffs were investigated by TPS officers including Detective Constable Spriggs, badge #5008 and Detective Jim McLane, badge #1300. These officers considered the following evidence gathered by police: a) b) c) d) e) All the items seized from the Plaintiffs at the time of arrest; The identities of the Plaintiffs; Statements made by the Plaintiffs; Literature and notebooks in possession of the Plaintiffs; and Information gleaned from cell phones in possession of the Plaintiffs including text messages and photographs. 123. Despite knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest and gathering significant information about the Plaintiffs, it was determined that there were no reasonable grounds to proceed with charges against them. If there were not reasonable grounds to lay charges against the Plaintiffs after significant investigation, it could

26

not reasonably be suggested that lawful grounds for arrest existed prior to police having any of the above information. 124. The Plaintiffs were released unconditionally. Damages 125. The Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including: a) Damages for loss of liberty, physical, emotional, and mental distress, and indignity; b) c) d) e) f) Damages for physical injury; Damages for loss of reputation; Damages for loss of income; Damages for the Plaintiffs loss of time and routine of life; Aggravated damages for the insulting, high handed, malicious and oppressive conduct; and g) Punitive damages for the Defendants abuse of authority for a malicious purpose with wilful and/or grossly negligent disregard of the Plaintiffs rights. Remedy Sought 126. The Plaintiffs claim damages in respect of the unlawful conduct of members of the TPS.

27

127. The Plaintiffs further claim damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the breach of their rights under ss. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Charter. 128. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at Toronto. Date of Issue: Davin Charney Barrister and Solicitor 295A Queen Street East Toronto ON M5A 1S7

28