Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Cave v. Bambury , 2012 NSSC 129

 

Date:20120328

Docket: Hfx No. 280323

Registry: Halifax

Between:

 

Ralph Douglas Cave

Plaintiff

- and -

 

Jacqueline Bambury, Lance Trevor Sparks (aka Lance Trevor States)

Tammy MacDonald, Mark Kellock and Halifax Regional Municipality

and Attorney General of Canada (on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

 

Defendants

 

                                                                                                   - and -

 

Jacqueline Bambury and Lance Trevor Sparks

 

                                                                                                                                                                    Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

                                                                                                   - and -

 

Ralph Douglas Cave

 

                                                                                                                                                                 Defendant by Counterclaim

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

Judge:                            The Honourable Justice N.M. Scaravelli

 

Heard:                            November 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 2011 and March 14-15, 2012, Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Written Decision:       March 28, 2012

 

Subject:                 False Arrest and Imprisonment / Negligent Investigation / Breach of Charter / Malicious Prosecution

 

Summary:                     Plaintiff commenced action against police officer and, vicariously, HRM as a result of three incidents of arrest and detention.  Plaintiff claimed against defendant complainants for malicious prosecution.  Complainants counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages to their motor vehicles.

 

Result:                           Plaintiff’s claims for negligent investigation and breach of Charter dismissed on HRM’s motion for non-suit.   Plaintiff’s claim for false arrest dismissed as police had reasonable and probable grounds to make arrests.  Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution dismissed as complainants did not initiate the prosecution and, in any event, had reasonable and probable cause.  Complainants claim against the plaintiff for damage to their vehicles allowed in part.

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.