Download - Rob Ford: Statement of claim issued 2014.01.29

8/13/2019 Rob Ford: Statement of claim issued 2014.01.29

1/15


2/15


3/15

3

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims:a. a declaration that his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms have been infringed by some, all, or some combination of the employees of

Her Majesty in right of Ontario referred to below;

b. general and special damages in the amount of $1 million from all defendants;c. aggravated, punitive and penal damages in the amount of $100,000.00 from eachof the defendants;

d. damages in the amount of $100,000.00 pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter ofRights and Freedomsfor the breach of his right to life, liberty and security of the person

from Her Majesty in right of Ontario;

e. pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c-43, as amended;

f. the costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; andg. such further and other relief as the circumstances as the circumstances of the caserequires and the court deems just.

2. The plaintiff lives in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario.

3. The defendants Robert Ford ("Ford"), Payman Aboodowleh ("Aboodowleh") and AedanPetros ("Petros") live in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario.

4. Metro West Detention Centre ("MWDC") is a correctional facility established andoperated pursuant to theMinistry of Correctional Services Act.


4/15

4

5. The defendant Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministerof Correctional Services ("HMQ") operates MWDC, and is vicariously liable for the tortious

conduct of its employees, as described in this claim.

6. In January 2012, the plaintiff was charged with uttering a threat against Ford, asdescribed below. He was detained at MWDC pending trial.

7. The plaintiff is the estranged common-law spouse of Kathy Ford, who is the sister of thedefendant Ford. Thus, the plaintiff and Ford have known each other for a number of years and

the plaintiff is familiar with Ford's habits and lifestyle.

8. At the time of the events in issue in this proceeding, the defendants Ford, Aboodowlehand Petros were known to each other:

(a) Ford was the coach of a high-school football team at Don Bosco Catholic

Secondary School.

(b) Aboodowleh was an assistant coach of the team.

(c) Petros had been a player on the team.

9. Ford is a municipal politician of considerable notoriety. In 2010, he ran for the office ofmayor of Toronto.

10. In addition to playing on the Don Bosco football team, Petros had participated veryactively in Ford's election campaign, and was literally front and centre on the stage when Ford

announced his candidacy.


5/15

5

11. After the events giving rise to this claim, there were widely published allegations thatFord abused alcohol and illicit drugs, and that he associated with criminal elements.

12. When the plaintiff was charged with uttering a threat against Ford however, theallegations concerning Ford's drug and alcohol abuse and his association with criminal elements

were not widely known. Ford was anxious that these matters should remain undiscovered.

13. In particular, Ford's drug and alcohol abuse, and his association with criminals tofacilitate his drug abuse, and drug abuse on the part of his family members, are longstanding.

14. Prior to 2013, these matters were largely unreported in the media and were unknown tomost members of the public.

15. All of this was however, known to the plaintiff, by reason of his common-lawrelationship with Kathy Ford and the extensive time he spent with Ford in his house, and at other

family and social events.

16. On or about January 11, 2012, the plaintiff was involved in a verbal altercation with Fordat Ford's home in Toronto. The plaintiff was attempting to recover a debt owed to him by Kathy

Ford, and he sought repayment from Ford. Ford called police and reported that the plaintiff had

threatened him.

17. The plaintiff left Ford's residence before police arrived. As he was leaving, he stated toFord that Ford should be careful about how he treated the plaintiff because the plaintiff knew

things about Ford and his family which had not been made public. Ford understood the plaintiff


6/15

6

to be referring to Ford's (and members of his familys) use of illicit drugs and association with

criminals.

18. The plaintiff was subsequently charged with uttering a threat against Ford and wasincarcerated in the MWDC.

19. While he was in jail, the plaintiff wrote a letter to Kathy Ford on or about January 27,2012. The letter came to Ford's attention and he understood it to be a threat by the plaintiff to

disclose Ford's drug and alcohol abuse and association with criminals.

20. Ford became highly agitated that the plaintiff might disclose Ford's unsavoury activities.Accordingly, he conspired with Aboodowleh to send a firm message to the plaintiff to prevent

him from doing so. In particular, as set out below, Ford and Aboodowleh conspired to have the

plaintiff threatened, and subsequently brutally beaten, while he was incarcerated in MWDC.

21. Part of a meeting at which Ford and Aboodowleh conspired to harm the plaintiff wasrecorded and a video recording of the meeting was subsequently published on the Internet. In

that incident, which took place in Aboodowleh's house, Ford became extremely agitated and

Ford and Aboodowleh discussed plans to have the plaintiff beaten or killed. This meeting

occurred shortly before March 19, 2012.

22. Long before the plaintiff was incarcerated in MWDC, Petros and another ex-member ofthe Don Bosco football team named Rexford Williams found themselves in custody at MWDC.

They were being held pending trial on numerous charges after they jointly engaged in a violent

home invasion, in which they severely beat their victim and slashed him with a knife.


7/15

7

23. Shortly after the plaintiff was incarcerated in MWDC, Ford and Aboodowleh agreed thatone or both of them would contact Petros and Williams for the purposes set out below.

24. Ford and Aboodowleh were acquainted with Petros and Williams because of theirparticipation in high-school football activities, and because of Petros's participation in Ford's

election campaign.

25. While in custody at MWDC, Petros was held in range 1B. Williams was held in range2C.

26. MWDC has a well-established practice of placing prisoners who are older than thegeneral population, or calmer and more mature in open range 3A. There is an established

practice of placing younger prisoners and prisoners who are more prone to violent and disruptive

behaviour in ranges on the first and second floor.

27. At the time of the events in question, the plaintiff was 46 years old. He had beenpreviously incarcerated at MWDC and had an established record as a calm and orderly prisoner.

On all previous occasions when incarcerated at MWDC he had been placed in range 3C,

pursuant to the practice described above. On this occasion, he was initially incarcerated in range

2C, for the first time.

28. Upon arriving in custody, the plaintiff was repeatedly threatened by other inmates to"keep his mouth shut" and "do the right thing" or suffer serious consequences. Petros and

Williams communicated these threats to the plaintiff directly, and through other inmates.


8/15

8

29. Shortly after the plaintiff arrived in custody, MWDC staff discovered the letter that theplaintiff wrote to Kathy Ford (described at paragraph 19 above). As a result, the plaintiff was

placed in segregated confinement for approximately two weeks. When he was returned to the

general prison population, MWDC employees placed him back on range 2C.

30. This was contrary to MWDC's ordinary practice that prisoners who are released fromsegregation are not ordinarily returned to the range where they were held before being placed in

segregation.

31. The threats that are described above began almost immediately upon the plaintiff'sadmission to MWDC, and continued as soon as he was released from segregation.

32. The threats were made by Petros and Williams and others acting on their behalf.

33. The plaintiff became fearful that he was in jeopardy of serious harm. He brought thethreats to the attention of various MWDC staff, whose identity is known to some or all of the

defendants and not known to the plaintiff. He repeatedly asked to be placed in range 3A, and

when this was consistently refused, he asked to be placed back in segregation.

34. This request was granted; however at or around the time the plaintiff was placed back insegregation, a supervisory employee who is known to plaintiff only as Captain Cordoza directed

that the plaintiff was not to be placed in range 3A when he emerged from segregation. Written

instructions to this effect were recorded on the plaintiff's file. There was no bona fidereason for

doing this.


9/15

9

35. The plaintiff was held in segregated detention for several days, but was discharged to thegeneral population and lodged in open range 1B, where Petros was being held.

36. The threats by Petros resumed. He repeatedly threatened the plaintiff that he wouldsuffer dire consequences if he did not remain quiet about the substance abuse and criminal

activities of Ford and members of Fords family.

37. The plaintiff continued to report the threats to staff of MWDC. No steps were taken toprotect the plaintiff.

38. On or about March 22, 2012, Petros and another unknown inmate or inmates, or somecombination of the foregoing, attacked the plaintiff outside the shower facility in range 1B. In

particular, the plaintiff was severely and brutally beaten by three assailants.

39. The plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries that required him to be hospitalizedand subsequently placed in convalescent care. The plaintiff's left tibia and fibula were severely

fractured, and he sustained facial lacerations and severe dental damage. Four or more of his

teeth were sheared at the gum line.

40. MWDC correctional officers ordinarily monitor the shower area, where the plaintiff wasassaulted, by video and direct visual observation. Nobody came to the plaintiff's aid. The video

surveillance had been inexplicably disabled before the plaintiff was assaulted, and the guards

stationed to observe the area did not respond for reasons which have never been explained.

41. Following the assault, MWDC employees did not give the plaintiff appropriate andnecessary care. In particular, despite the extensive and serious nature of his injuries, the plaintiff


10/15

10

was not transported to hospital until 36 hours after the assault. The plaintiff's pain and suffering

was seriously aggravated by the delay in providing proper medical care. In addition, the delay

caused complications in treating the injuries themselves.

42. The plaintiff was transported to the Etobicoke General Hospital on March 23, 2012. Herequired emergency surgery, but as a result of the delay in transporting the plaintiff to hospital,

his injured leg had become badly swollen and inflamed, which significantly heightened the risks

associated with the surgery. The plaintiff was advised of both the need for surgery, and the

heightened risks resulting from the failure of MWDC to transport him to hospital in a timely

manner. The plaintiff gave his consent and surgery was performed approximately eight days

after he was admitted.

43. The plaintiff remained in custody of the Ministry of Correctional Services for about sixmonths following the initial emergent treatment of his injuries in hospital. During this time, the

plaintiff received inadequate care and treatment for the injuries to his leg, and no care or

treatment whatsoever for the injuries to his face and teeth. As a result of the failure of Ministry

employees to arrange for appropriate care for the plaintiff, he suffered further damages,

including a prolonged, painful and incomplete convalescence, permanent disfigurement, and

other complications including infection.

44. Although the plaintiff's teeth were broken and knocked out in the assault on March 23,2012, no steps were taken to arrange dental care for almost two months after the attack. The

plaintiff suffered extreme pain as a result, and the injuries became impossible to treat, or in the

alternative, became considerably more difficult to treat.


11/15

11

45. On or about June 13, 2012, the plaintiff came before the Ontario Court of Justice forsentencing, following a guilty plea on the threatening charge referred to above. On being

apprised of the plaintiff's circumstances, including the assault of March 22, 2012 and the lack of

proper care afforded by the Ministry employees, the court correctly inferred that the plaintiff was

attacked because he had been a bother to Ford and his family.

46. The plaintiff was released from custody on September 23, 2012. He has since sufferedongoing pain and discomfort from his injuries and the inadequate care he received while

incarcerated. The plaintiff is disabled and has not received appropriate treatment for the injuries

to his teeth.

Liability of the MWDC and the Ministry

47. The MWDC staff was responsible for the security and safety of the plaintiff while he wasin its custody. The MWDC failed to protect the plaintiff's safety and security of the person.

48. Persons employed by the MWDC knew or ought to have known that the plaintiff wasexposed to serious threats of personal harm because of the threats that were made to him and

communicated to MWDC. In particular, the plaintiff was notoriously pursued and threatened

while in the custody of MWDC; the plaintiff sought protection and segregation from such threats

from MWDC staff; and the plaintiff was nevertheless placed in proximity to known associates of

Ford who had threatened the plaintiff on behalf of Ford. There was no response or no adequate

response to the plaintiff's justified concern for his safety.


12/15

12

49. Persons employed by the MWDC, whose identity is known to the defendants but notknown to the plaintiff, intentionally or negligently facilitated the attack on the plaintiff by

intentionally or negligently failing to assess the risk of the plaintiff being assaulted, and by

failing to ensure that the surveillance of the area in which the plaintiff was assaulted was

properly functioning, and by refusing to lodge the plaintiff in range 3C.

50. Persons employed by the MWDC intentionally or negligently failed to properlyinvestigate the attack on the plaintiff, thereby prejudicing the plaintiff's ability to successfully

pursue a claim against his assailants and/or their co-conspirators.

51. Persons employed by the MWDC intentionally or negligently failed to arrange forappropriate and timely care and treatment of the plaintiff, thereby aggravating his injuries and

causing him to suffer additional harm.

52. In the alternative, persons employed by the MWDC, whose identity is known to thedefendants but not known to the plaintiff, conspired with one or more of the defendants to

facilitate the attack on the plaintiff by agreeing to place the plaintiff in ranges 1B and 2C.

53. In the alternative, managerial and other employees of the Ministry of CorrectionalServices failed to ensure the plaintiff's safety by negligently failing to provide appropriate

supervision and training of MWDC staff, and in failing to provide adequate equipment, facilities

and sufficient personnel to ensure the plaintiff's safety while in custody.


13/15

13

54. As a result of the conduct of the Ministry and the MWDC employees described above,the plaintiff has suffered damages, and his rights under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms have been breached.

Liability of Ford, Aboodowleh, and Petros

55. Ford, Aboodowleh, and Petros conspired among themselves and with others whoseidentity is known to them but not known to the plaintiff, to arrange for the attack on the plaintiff

and to cause him serious harm. In particular, Aboodowleh, acting as Ford's agent and with

Ford's explicit or tacit approval, contacted Petros and Williams and instructed them to send a

message to the plaintiff, first in the form of threats of physical harm, and then in the form of a

brutal assault and battery of the plaintiff.

56. Ford and Aboodowleh arranged for persons employed by MWDC, whose identity isknown to Ford and Aboodowleh but not known to the plaintiff, to facilitate the exposure of the

plaintiff to Petros, and to facilitate the attack on the plaintiff on March 23, 2012, and more

particularly, to arrange for the plaintiffs detention in range 1B, and to ensure that there was no

supervision or surveillance of the area where the plaintiff was assaulted.

57. Petros agreed to and ultimately did carry out the instructions of Ford and Aboodowleh, orin the alternative arranged for others to do so.

58. The various matters set out in paragraphs 55 to 57 above and elsewhere in this statementof claim were the subject of communications between the defendants during visits by Ford and

Aboodowleh (or either of these) to MWDC, and on calls and messages sent and received by the

defendants on their mobile telephones.


14/15

14

59. Ford and Aboodowleh knew that the plaintiff would suffer physical harm as a result oftheir actions, which included instructing Petros to send a message to the plaintiff that he should

not expose Ford's illicit drug use or his association with criminals.

60. As a result of the conduct of the defendants, or the conduct of those for whom thedefendants are liable, as set out above, the plaintiff has suffered damages as set out above.

61. The conduct of the defendants, or those for whom they are vicariously liable, issufficiently reprehensible, oppressive and high-handed so as to justify the court's denunciation

with an award of exemplary damages, and further justifies penal damages.

The plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at Toronto.

January 29, 2014 DEWART GLEASON LLPLawyersSuite 102 366 Adelaide Street WestToronto, ONM5V 1R9

Sean Dewart 26708BTim Gleason 43927A(416) 971-8000 (Tel.)(416) 971-8001 (Fax)

Lawyers for the Plaintiff


15/15

Download - Rob Ford: Statement of claim issued 2014.01.29

Top Related