Court of Appeal

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

Citation:  Bevis v. Burns,  2006 NSCA 56

                                                                                                     Date: 20060508

                                                                                               Docket: CA 234039

                                                                                                            CA 234852

   Registry:  Halifax

Between:

                                      Kerry C. Bevis and Rasim Karela

                                                                                                              Appellants

                                                             v.

                                            Constable Rick Burns and

                                                Constable Bob Kelly

                                                                                                          Respondents

JUDGE:                                   MacDonald, C.J.N.S.

APPEAL HEARD:                   February 16, 2006, Halifax, Nova Scotia

SUBJECT:       Civil Law, Intentional Torts, Charter Breaches, s. 24(1) Remedy

Civil Juries, Adequacy of Jury Charge, Standard of Review

SUMMARY:    The appellants were the victims of unlawful arrest and other intentional torts at the hands of the respondent police officers.  Their actions also constituted Charter breaches.  The trial judge refused to direct the jury to return separate awards for the torts and Charter breaches.  Instead they were told to return one global award compensating the appellants for their overall experience.  The appellants assert that the judge erred by denying them a separate award for the Charter breaches.  They also took issue with the judge’s charge on aggravated damages.

                                                                                                                     - 2 -

ISSUE:             Did the judge err in directing only one award for the intentional torts and Charter breaches?  

RESULT:         While the judge did not necessarily err by instructing one global award for the torts and the Charter breaches, his instruction on the Charter remedy was inadequate.  The jury was unable to meaningfully consider an “appropriate and just” award under s. 24(1) of the Charter.  A new hearing also including the aggravated damage claims was ordered.