- the prisoner vans were being negligently designed in numerous strategies
- the town did just about practically nothing to safeguard the basic safety of prisoners in the van
- the van’s driver disregarded prisoner welfare following the incident
- the defendants’ mindset toward prisoner basic safety showed a callous and wanton disregard for their wellbeing
- he was only asking for the defendants to be held liable if the court docket identified that punitive damages were correct
The appellant’s tactic completely targeted on the basic safety of the prisoners as riders in the van. The metropolis, on the other hand, took a broader perspective of the relevant basic safety factors, together with the safety of prisoners from each individual other while in the van, of users of the community probably obtaining immediate or oblique call with the prisoners, and of the officers transporting the prisoners.
Justice Kevin Whitaker of the Ontario Top-quality Court docket of Justice deemed both equally the appellant’s and the city’s ways as rational and endorsed neither solution over the other. The demo choose eventually dismissed the motion from the metropolis given that the appellant unsuccessful to establish the form of conduct justifying punitive damages. The Toronto Police Service’s carry out was not reprehensible, deserving of the community’s condemnation, or attracting sanction and denunciation, he reported.
The decide also dismissed the action from the van’s driver.
Town, driver need to have not shell out punitive damages
Very first, the appellate courtroom agreed with the trial judge’s dismissal of the motion towards the van’s driver. The appellant’s counsel acknowledged that the negligence assert was based mostly on the van’s alleged design deficiencies. The van’s driver could not be held liable for the van’s alleged layout defects or for punitive damages arising from those people problems, the appellate courtroom said.