Court File No. KEL-S-S-129145 BRITISH COLUMBIA File No. A Court Registry: Kelowna 26-Oct-20 Kelowna IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDITH ANNE REID PLAINTIFF AND: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL and Cst. JULIUS PROMMER DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM [Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms] This action has been started by the Plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to reSpond to this action, you or your lawyer must file a response to civil claim in Form 2 In the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and Serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the Plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must ?le a response to the civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the Plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to ?le the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be ?led and served on the Plaintiff, if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, if you reside elsewhere, Within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, or if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Parties 1. The Defendant, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General in the Province of British Columbia ("the Minister"), has an office at 1001 Douglas St in the city of Victoria in the Province of British Columbia and is responsible for the actions of the Royal Canadian Mountain Police and Julius Prommer. ("Prommer") 2. Prommer is a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was carrying out the powers and duties as a member of the provincial police force as defined in the Police Act, R.S.C. 1996, c. 367 and amendments to it. 3. Prommer is a member of the RCMP, located at 1190 Richter St, Kelowna, BC. V1Y 2K7 The Plaintiff The Plaintiff is a resident of Kelowna and is employed as an Admissions Officer. CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action: Assault causing Bodily Harm 1. On February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was in her room in Kelowna doing exercises at night around 6:30 7:30 pm. The Plaintiff had allegedly upset a neighbour at her home who the Plaintiff believes to have some mental health issues. The Police had arrived at the Plaintiff's residence around 10:45 pm at which time the Plaintiff was doing nothing other than watching TV at this time. At approximately 10:50 pm a Police Officer knocked on the Plaintiff?s door, who the Plaintiff now knows to be Julius Prommer. Upon opening the door and realizing that it was a Police officer that had knocked on her door, the Plaintiff stated to Prommer to hold on a moment. The Plaintiff went and grabbed her phone from her bed. The Plaintiff informed Prommer that if he wanted to have a conversation with her, she would be recording the conversation. Without any invitation or provocation, Prommer entered the Plaintiff?s room and forcibly kicked the back of the Plaintiff?s leg. As a result of Prommer?s assault on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff fell to the floor of her bedroom in excruciating pain. Prommer did not offer the Plaintiff any assistance and instead proceeded to handcuff the Plaintiff and attempted to drag the Plaintiff up and proceeded to berate the Plaintiff to stand up on her leg, which was obviously damaged by Prommer's assault on the Plaintiff. Given the excruciating pain that the Plaintiff was in, Prommer called an ambulance to take the Plaintiff to Kelowna General Hospital The Plaintiff was at all times handcuffed while being transported to KGH. While seated at the Emergency area, the Plaintiff was handcuffed and was not attended to immediately, despite the excruciating pain that the Plaintiff was suffering. 5. The Plaintiff requested, on more than one occasion, for a support or mental health worker, given the anxiety that she was suffering from being around Prommer, who had just assaulted the Plaintiff. Prommer advised the Plaintiff that she was not allowed to have a support worker or speak to anyone until she had been processed at the RCMP. 6. Whilst waiting at KGH, the Plaintiff agreed with Prommer to be processed at the RCMP detachment based on the assurance that she would be returned to the hospital. Prommer removed the Plaintiff from KGH. 7. The Plaintiff was placed in a wheelchair and was wheeled out to the Police Vehicle. Prommer and an orderly put the Plaintiff in the backseat, with her hands still handcuffed. Once Prommer was in the Police Vehicle. he intentionally moved his seat back squeezing the Plaintiff's leg causing it more pain and discomfort. 8. The Plaintiff was placed in the Kelowna RCMP Drunk Tank. The Plaintiff had no alcohol in her system, nor was the Plaintiff intoxicated. While in the Drunk Tank, the Plaintiff continued to yell and scream out for help as she was in severe pain. 9. The Plaintiff was released by the RCMP. Prior to her release, the Plaintiff requested that an ambulance be called to return her to KGH. An ambulance was called and the Plaintiff was taken to KGH where her injuries were documented and x-rays were completed on her leg. As a result of the brutal assault by Prommer, the Plaintiff had a Tibial Plateau fracture. The Plaintiff required surgery on the right leg, which included a lateral plate and screw fixation. Second Cause of Action: Breach of Section 8 Charter Rights 10. After being kicked and handcuffed by Prommer, and whilst being placed in the ambulance Prommer went through her purse. This was not a search incidental to arrest this was a breach of the Plaintiffs Section 8 rights to be protected from unlawful search and seizure. Third Cause of Action: Breach of Section 9 Charter Rights 11. 12. 13. 14. Prommer detained the Plaintiff and drove the Plaintiff to the Kelowna RCMP detachment. Throughout the drive, the Plaintiff remained scared, petrified, and in severe pain. Prommer detained the Plaintiff for over eight hours without advising her of the reasons for her detention. Prommer knew that the Plaintiff was operating under the belief that her freedom was restricted and that she was under detention. Prommer knew that given the Plaintiff?s physical state and the intimidating surroundings of the RCMP that the Plaintiff at all times believed she was detained. Prommer willfully and maliciously refused to provide the Plaintiff with her 3.9 Charter rights. The Plaintiff was detained for eight hours. The Plaintiff was not charged by Prommer for any offences and was not told that there was any pending investigation. As a direct foreseeable and proximate result of the RCMP and Prommer?s unlawful actions, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to the Plaintiff?s damage. Prommer and the RCMP committed the acts herein deSpicably, maliciously, oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring the Plaintiff from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff. Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of Section 10(a) and 10(b) Charter Rights 15. Following the Plaintiff's detention, the RCMP was aware that the Plaintiff was entitled to be informed of the reasons thereof, to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to be informed of that right. The Plaintiff was not provided with her Charter rights for hours after arriving at the detachment, breaching her 5.10 Constitutional rights. The RCMP are aware of their obligation regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 16. As a direct foreseeable and proximate result of the RCMP and Prommer?s unlawful actions, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to the Plaintiff?s damage. Prommer and the RCMP committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring the Plaintiff from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff. Fifth Cause of Action: Intentional infliction of mental Suffering 17. Prommer?s actions were deliberate, flagrant, and outrageous as he kicked the back of the Plaintiff's leg causing a Tibial Plateau fracture. 18. Prommer intended to detain the Plaintiff for over eight hours knowing that she would suffer mental harm, shock, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment. 19. The individual conduct of Prommer caused the Plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable iHness. 20. Prommer?s actions were intentional and calculated as he intentionally moved his seat back to squeeze the Plaintiffs leg to cause more physical harm to the Plaintiff. RCMP Member and Employee Negligence 21. At all material times, Prommer was a Member of the RCMP and a Crown employee who owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to ensure that the Plaintiff received medical assistance and that her conduct would not cause the Plaintiff to suffer any or physical harm. 22. The RCMP are aware that Prommer has a habit of using excessive force against members of the public. 23. Section 37 of the RCMP Act makes it incumbent on every Member to, among other things: i. ReSpeot the right of all persons; ii. To maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement, and the administration of justice; To perform the Member's duties impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the Member's authority; iv. To ensure that improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue; v. To act at all time in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner; and vi. To maintain the honour ofthe RCMP and its principles and purposes. 24. The Code of Conduct established by regulation under 3.38 of the RCMP Act requires Members and Civilian Members to, among other things, respect the rights of every person. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the RCMP Regulations, ss. 38 to 58.7. a. Prommer and the RCMP breached the duties above by, among other things: i. Assaulting the Plaintiff and; ii. Failing to adhere to s. 37 of the RCMP Act. 25. Prommer's conduct directed towards the Plaintiff was abusive and repetitive in the extreme. The Plaintiff suffered mental and physical injury. Prommer and the RCMP knew or ought to have known that their conduct was of a kind reasonably capable of damaging the Plaintiff. Prommer particularly knew or ought to have known that her behavior would: harm; iv. o?end; v. demean; vi. belittle; vii. humiliate; embarrass; ix. petrify; x. terrify; and xi. intimidate. Punitive Damages 26. The actions of Prommer and the RCMP were reckless, arrogant, high?handed, abusive, and showed a callous disregard for the Plaintiffs rights. Prommer and the RCMP have engaged in conduct that is reprehensible and deserves punishment. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks punitive and exemplary damages against Prommer and the RCMP. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiff claims damages from Prommer and the RCMP as follows: i. general damages; ii. aggravated and punitive damages; costs, including Special costs and applicable taxes on those costs; iv. damages pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; v. pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c. 79, and amendments thereto; and vi. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS Limitation Act - Discovery of Claim 27. 28. 29. The Plaintiff attempted to make a formal complaint to Prommer's supervisor ("the Supervisor"), however, the Plaintiff was told the RCMP would not investigate until the Independent Investigations Of?ce of BC. had concluded their investigation. The Plaintiff was advised by the Supervisor that Prommer was justi?ed in his actions. The Plaintiff was advised by the Police that she should wait to hear from the Police in relation to potential charges. The Plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to delay any Action in this matter until she was sure that there were no criminal matters that were pending against her. The Plaintiff was also advised by lawyers that she should wait to see whether or not any criminal matter would be forthcoming from the RCMP before she made any attempt to bring any Action against the Police. However, the Plaintiff was also advised that her chances of bringing any Action successfully, given the reputation of the RCMP, that any Action brought would be between slim and nil. 30. In seeking to exercise reasonable diligence, the Plaintiff consulted three lawyers in Kelowna, who advised the Plaintiff that they were not interested in taking on her claim against the RCMP given the difficulties with bringing claims against the RCMP. The Plaintiff was discouraged to start any Action, by the lawyers that she consulted. 31. Following the assault by Prommer, the Plaintiff?s mother was sick with cancer and as a result, the Plaintiff was engaged for several months travelling to look after her mother. The Plaintiff was therefore not in a position to feasibly bring an Action, given the costs and strain of litigation and her personal obligation to look after her mother. 32. The fear of the RCMP, the discouragement by lawyers, and the illness of her mother totally overwhelmed the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff was not in a position to bring any Action or to further explore any Actions against Prommer and the RCMP. 33. The Plaintiff only discovered in 2019 that the ongoing nightmares, sleepless nights, and ongoing depression and anxiety she has been experiencing are connected to the physical assault and trauma that she suffered at the hands of Prommer in February of 2018. 34. The Plaintiff only became aware in 2020 that she has a legitimate claim against Prommer and the RCMP following reports in the media concerning the assault of another Kelowna resident who reported an assault by Prommer that was similar in nature to her encounter with Prommer in February of 2018. Standard of Care 23. The standard of care owed by Prommer and the RCMP to the Plaintiff is informed by, among other things, the RCMP Act and the Code of Conduct established by regulation under s. 38 of the RCMP Act. Government Liability for Negligence of RCMP Members 24. The Crown is vicariously liable for the torts committed by members, Civilian members, and Public Service Employees in the course of their duties. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 35. 3 and 36. 25. The Minister is jointly and severally liable for torts committed by Members in the course of their duties in British Columbia. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Police Act, ss. 11 and 21. Plaintiff?s address for service: 618 Main Street, Penticton, BC. V2A 5C8 Fax number address for service: 778-476-6225 Place of Trial: Kelowna The address of the registry is 1355 Water Street, Kelowna, BC Date: October 15, 2020 ig/ ttf?o/f Michael Patterson I kavvyer for Plaintiff Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (I) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (II) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and serve the list on all parties of record.