There were errors in the application of the law regarding the defence of lawful justification
The Alberta Court of Appeal has mandated a new trial concerning alleged police misconduct, identifying errors in how the trial judge applied the law related to the defence of lawful justification.
In Paul v Quan, 2024 ABCA 100, the plaintiff had sought substantial damages from the defendants, who were active police officers at the time of the incidents. The appeal stemmed from two actions tied to allegations of police misconduct during arrests at two different locations: the Iron Horse Eatery in June 2006 and the Monkey Island bar in December 2007. The plaintiff accused Officer Wilson Quan of using excessive force in the first incident and Officer Richard Begin of assaulting him in the second incident without lawful justification.
The trial judge dismissed all claims against the officers, citing a lack of liability. Despite this, the judge made a provisional assessment of damages. The plaintiff's appeal challenged the trial judge's findings, particularly critiquing the judge's assessment of his credibility and the interpretation of evidence, including surveillance footage and the justification of the officers' actions. The appellant argued that these perceived errors affected the entire ruling, including the assessment of damages.
Upon reviewing the appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision regarding Officer Begin's incident, finding no fault in the judgment that the plaintiff was impeding a police investigation and that his arrest was justified when he refused to provide identification.
However, the appeal court reached a different conclusion for Officer Quan's incident. It identified a reviewable error in how the trial judge applied the law regarding Quan's defence of lawful justification under s. 25 of the Criminal Code. According to the appellate court, this error necessitated a new trial to reassess both liability and damages related to Quan's actions.
Specifically, the appellate court found that the trial judge failed to appropriately consider whether Quan's use of a baton during the arrest was reasonable and necessary. Furthermore, dismissing video evidence from the scene as lacking probative value was deemed erroneous, contributing to the decision to order a new trial.
In light of these findings, the court dismissed the appeal in the action against Begin and allowed the appeal against Quan. The court returned the case for a fresh trial on liability and damages. The appellate court also suggested the parties consider alternative dispute resolution to resolve this long-standing litigation, hinting at the possibility of utilizing the court’s binding judicial dispute resolution services.
