The court finds plaintiffs had no standing to sue on behalf of the deceased
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a $12 million lawsuit alleging police misconduct in a power of attorney (POA) dispute, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and failed to establish a genuine issue requiring a trial.
Eva Pitt, a member of the Nipissing First Nation, was born in 1927 and passed away on February 7, 2022. She and her husband raised two nephews, Stanley and James Pitt. The plaintiff, Donna Marion, was their sister and was close to Eva. Co-plaintiff Lloyd Newton was Marion’s common-law partner. In 2012, Eva appointed Marion and Newton as her attorneys under a POA and transferred her home to Marion.
In 2013, Eva’s relatives arranged for her to move to a nursing home. Newton later removed her and brought her back to live with him and Marion. Around the same time, Eva signed over $3,900 to Newton for renovations on the transferred property even though she no longer legally owned it. Police later placed Eva in a hospital, investigated allegations of elder abuse, and assessed her capacity. She ultimately revoked the plaintiffs’ POA, leading Aboriginal Affairs to assume control of her property.
Police charged Newton and Marion with theft under $5,000 in connection with the $3,900 withdrawal. The charges were withdrawn in August 2014 after they agreed to repay the funds as part of a diversion program. In 2016, Newton, acting personally and as trustee of Marion’s estate after she passed away in 2015, sued the Anishinabek Police Service (APS) for $12 million, alleging police misconduct, including negligent investigation, breach of privacy, and abuse of power.
The defendants sought summary judgment under rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no legal basis and did not warrant a trial. The court agreed, applying the test established in Hryniak v. Mauldin, which emphasizes resolving cases efficiently where a trial is unnecessary.
The Superior Court found many claims did not meet the legal threshold for actionable wrongdoing. It dismissed claims related to interference with the elderly woman’s wishes, including decisions about her care and property. The court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims on her behalf, as they were not acting as litigation guardians or otherwise authorized to do so
The court rejected claims of negligent investigation and malicious prosecution, ruling that the plaintiffs did not establish key legal elements, including the requirement that the court resolve the criminal proceedings in their favour. The plaintiffs repaid the funds as part of an agreement, leading the Crown to withdraw the charges, but the court ruled that this did not qualify as a favourable termination.
In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs’ submissions were insufficient to support their allegations. The plaintiffs submitted extensive but disorganized materials, including affidavits from unrelated proceedings, unsworn statements, and unofficial transcripts. The judge noted that the evidence was difficult to follow and lacked expert reports necessary to support claims of police misconduct.
While acknowledging the plaintiffs’ frustration with the police investigation, the court emphasized that legal claims require more than personal grievances. The judge concluded that none of the claims raised genuine issues for trial and dismissed the action.
