18:45 4169524518 PAGE 83.314 Court File No.: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO PETER MERRIFIELD Plaintiff (Respondent) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, INSPECTOR JAMIE JAGOE, SUPERINTENDENT MARC PROULX Defendants (Appellants) NOTICE OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, INSPECTOR JAMIE JAGOE and SUPERINTENDENT MARC PROULX, APPEAL to the Court of Appeal from the judgment bf the Honourable Justice Vallee of the Superior Court of Justice (the trial judge), dated February 28, 2017. made at Barrie, Ontario. THE APPELLANTS ASK that the judgment be set aside and a judgment be granted as follows: 1. Dismissing the action, with costs to the Appellants in this Court and in the Court below. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: Harassment The trial judge erred in law in' finding that the Appellants were liable for a new tort of harassment; . 833383261? 18:45 4159524518 PAGE 814.314 -2- 2. Alternatively. the trial judge made errors of law andlor palpable and overriding errors at fact in finding that the conduct of the Appellants towards the Respondent satisfied all of the elements of the new tort of harassment. In particular, a) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the conduct of the Appellants was outrageous; b) The trial judge made errors of law and. palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the Appellants had a reckless disregard for causing the Respondent to suffer emotional distress; c) The trial judge 'made errors of law and/or a palpable and overriding error of fact in ?nding that the Respondent suffered from severe depression and post?traumatic stress disorder. in the absence of any supporting medical evidence; d) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the Appellants? conduct was the actual and proximate cause of any physical or injury experienced by the Respondent, in the absence of any supporting medical evidence; Intentional ln?iction of Mental Suffering. 3. The trial judge made errors of law and/or palpable and overriding errors of fact in finding the Appellants liable for the tort of intentional in?iction of mental suffering. in particular, 18:45 4159524518 PAGE @5f14 -3- a) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding .errors of fact in finding that the Appellants?. conduct towards the Respondent satis?ed the elements of the tort of intentional in?iction of mental suffering; b) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in finding that the Appellants' conduct was ?agrant and outrageous; c) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the Appellants? conduct was. calculated to cause harm to the Respondent; d) The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the Appellants? conduct caused the Respondent to suffer any visible and provable illness; The trial judge made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in ?nding that the Appellants' conduct was the actual and proximate cause of any physical or injury experienced by the Respondent, in the absence of any supporting medical-evidence; Additional Errors n-?iade by the Trial Judge 4. The judge erred in law by permitting the Respondent to introduce highly prejudicial evidence related to and against the Appellant Proulx, despite the. evidence having no probative value to the causes of action pleaded by the 63;?383281? 18:45 4159524518 PRGE -4- Respondent, which had the effect of tainting the ?ndings made by the trial judge; 5. The.trial judge. made palpable and overriding?errors of fact in her assessment of the credibility of the Appellants? and the Respondent?s witnesses, including the Respondent and theAppellants Proulx and Jagoe, which tainted the trial judge?s ?ndings of fact and of law; 6. The trial judge erred in law by permitting the Respondent to call evidence from a confidential informant, and by relying on that con?dential informant?s evidence in herjudgment; I 7. The trial judge erred in law in refusing to quash the subpoena issued by the Respondent to Commissioner Robert Paulson, when he had no relevant testimony to provide based on the pleadings, and where the basis for the Commissioner?s testimony was his appearance before a Parliamentary committee, in violation of Parliamentary privilege: 8. The trial judge erred in permitting the Respondent to re-open his case during'the testimony of the Appellants witnesses in order to call evidence and to subpoena RCMP witnesses, including recalling Commissioner Robert Paulson, to testify about a complaint made by Constable Ktabi against the Respondent in July 2015 when the Respondent-referred to the Commissioner during a presentation as a 18:45 4159524518 PSGE B?fld -5- 9. The trial judge erred in law andlor made palpable and overriding errors of fact by finding liability against the Appellants based on facts that were not pleaded in the Respondent?s Amended Amended Statement of Claim; and 10. Such further and other grounds as counsel. may advise and this Honourable Court may permit. THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS: s. of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, which provides for an appeal as of right when a Judgment being appealed is a ?nal order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. The order of Justice Vallee is ?nal. March 30, 2017 TO: Laura Young Law Of?ces Department of Justice Ontario Regional Of?ce The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario, MEX 1K6 Per: Sean Gaudet (LSUC James Gorham (LSUC 439318) Tel: 416973-0392 1116-9544929 Fax: (416) 9524518 Counsel for the Defendants (Appellants) 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1000 Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2M5 Laura Young Tel: 416?361-0094 Fax: 416-8506134 Solicitor for the Plaintiff (Respondent) 18:45 4169524518 AND TO Phillips Gill LLP, Barristers 33 Jarvis Street, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario. M5E 1 N3 John Kingman Phillips Tel: Fax: 416-964-0823 Solicitor for the Plaintiff (Respondent) PAGE Bafld PETER MERRIFIELD Plaintiff (Respondent) AND (Court ?le no.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, INSPECTOR JAMIE JAGOEJ SUPERINTENDENT MARC PROULX Defendants (Appellants) ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Proceeding Commenced at Toronto - NOTECE OF APPEAL Department of Justice Ontario Regional Of?ce The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1 K6 Per: M. Sean Gaucletl r James Gorham Tel: {416) 973-2240 I 954-2929 Fax: (416} 952-4518 Law Society No: 35204R I 439318 Counsel for the Appellants, the Attorney General of Canada, Inspector Jamie Jagoe and Superintendent Marc Proulx 18:45 4159524518 PAGE @9314