25-Jun-19

Court File No. VLC-S-S-197088

File No. ...............................
Vancouver

Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Between
KANWALJIT SINGH
Plaintiff
And
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
AND SERGEANT BRIAN BLAIR

Defendants
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below.

If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must

(a) 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
(b) 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
(a) file a response to 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
(b) 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 file the response to civil claim
within the time for response to civil claim described below.

1
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21
days after that service,
(b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of
America, within 35 days after that service,
(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days
after that service, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within
that time.

2
 CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

PART 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Plaintiff is a software programmer and currently resides in Abbotsford, British Columbia.
He immigrated to Canada in 2006.

2. The Defendant, the Minister for Public Safety and Solicitor General (“the Minister”), is
responsible for provincial policing in British Columbia and has an address for service by
registered mail c/o Ministry of Justice, P.O. Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7.

3. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) is a federal police force, operating, inter alia, in
parts of British Columbia including Surrey. The Attorney General of Canada (“Federal Crown”)
is joined in these proceedings in accordance with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C.
1985, c-50, section 23(1). The Federal Crown’s address for service is c/o Department of Justice
Canada, 900 - 840 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2S9.

4. Pursuant to a policing agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the
Government of Canada, in accordance with s. 14 of the Police Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 367, and s. 20
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act R.S.C. 1985, C.R-10, the RCMP carries out the powers
and duties as a provincial police force in British Columbia.

5. Pursuant to s. 11(1) of the Police Act, the Minister is jointly and severally liable for torts
committed by provincial constables in the performance of their duties. Members of the RCMP
are considered to be provincial police officers pursuant to section 14(2)(b).

6. Pursuant to s.21 of the Police Act, police officers performing their duties are personally liable
for tortious conduct if they are guilty of gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct.

Relevant Events

7. The plaintiff, Mr. Singh (hereafter, the “Plaintiff”), is a devout Sikh and wears a turban as part
of the practice of his religion. The Plaintiff’s turban is not only an expression of his religious
beliefs but also a core piece of his identity.

8. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was being held in the custody of the Surrey RCMP in the holding
cells at the Surrey Police detachment (hereafter, the “Jail”).

3
9. At approximately 2:00 pm on June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was in the booking area of the Jail in
the presence of approximately four or five police officers.

10. At the time, the Plaintiff was the only inmate in the booking area of the Jail.

11. The Plaintiff had his back against the booking officer’s desk and was speaking with the police
officers who stood in a semi-circle in front of him.

12. While the Plaintiff was speaking with these officers, another police officer, who the Plaintiff
understands to be Sergeant Brian Blair (hereafter “Sergeant Blair”), joined the group of
officers standing in a semi-circle in front of him.

13. Suddenly, without provocation or justification, and despite the fact the Plaintiff was standing
still and being compliant, Sergeant Blair approached the Plaintiff and ripped the turban off of
his head.

14. Sergeant Blair then threw the Plaintiff’s turban onto the booking desk.

15. Immediately thereafter, Sergeant Blair, accompanied by three or four of the police officers
who had just been speaking with the Plaintiff, grabbed hold of the Plaintiff by his arms and
proceeded to march him out of the booking area to a holding cell.

16. While the Plaintiff was being marched to a holding cell, and despite the fact the Plaintiff was
being compliant, Sergeant Blair and/or another officer twisted the Plaintiff’s arms behind his
back, causing him pain.

17. While the Plaintiff was being marched to a holding cell, and despite the fact the Plaintiff was
being compliant, Sergeant Blair also grabbed the Plaintiff’s hair. The Plaintiff had styled his
hair in a “topknot” to facilitate the wearing of his turban, and Sergeant Blair pulled his hair out
of the “topknot.”

18. While the Plaintiff was being marched to a holding cell, he asked the police officers why they
were being aggressive with him and vocally protested against the forceful removal of his
turban, twisting of his arms and pulling of his hair.

19. Sergeant Blair intended his forceful removal of the Plaintiff’s turban and his pulling of the
Plaintiff’s hair to be insulting to the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs.

4
20. The police officers who witnessed Sergeant Blair forcefully remove the Plaintiff’s turban and
pull his hair did nothing in response to this evidently inappropriate behaviour by their fellow
police officer.

21. As a result of the conduct of Sergeant Blair described in paragraphs 12 through 19 herein, the
Plaintiff suffered:
a. injury to his dignity;
b. loss of self-respect;
c. embarrassment;
d. general pain and suffering;
e. psychological injury, including stress and anxiety;
f. such other injuries as counsel shall advise.

22. As a result of the conduct of Sergeant Blair described in paragraphs 12 through 19, and the
inaction of the police officers who witnessed Sergeant Blair’s conduct, the Plaintiff has lost trust
in police officers and is now wary of them.

PART 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. The Plaintiff claims as follows:

a. general damages;
b. aggravated damages;
c. exemplary damages;
d. special damages;
e. damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter for breaches of his s.7 and s.15 Charter
rights;
f. declarations that his s.7 and s.15 Charter rights were breached;
g. interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.79;
h. costs; and
i. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.

5
PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

Assault and Battery

1. As particularized in Part 1 herein, Sergeant Blair assaulted and battered the Plaintiff as he caused
the Plaintiff to fear harmful contact from him and intentionally inflicted harmful physical contact
upon him.

2. The Assault and Battery was not justified in the circumstances. The Plaintiff was being compliant
with officer’s instructions and did not threaten any officers or otherwise provoke the assault and
battery. In any event, there can be no justification in the circumstances for the forceful removal
of the Plaintiff’s turban and pulling of his hair.

3. In carrying out the Assault and Battery, Sergeant Blair was guilty of malicious and/or willful
misconduct or in the alternative, he was grossly negligent.

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

4. The conduct of the Defendants, as set out in Part 1 herein, through the actions of their employees,
servants and/or agents renders the Defendants liable to pay aggravated damages in order to:

a. properly compensate the Plaintiff for the high-handed, harsh and/or malicious actions
of the employees, servants or agents of the Defendants which resulted in the
aggravation of the Plaintiff’s damage;

b. provide more appropriate compensation to the Plaintiff;

5. The conduct of the Defendants, as set out in Part 1 herein, through the actions of their servants,
agents and/or employees renders the Defendants liable to pay exemplary damages as:

a. a consequence of the high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible

misconduct that departed, to a marked degree, from ordinary standards of decent
behaviour;

b. the combined award of general and aggravated damages alone would be insufficient
to achieve the goal of punishment, retribution, deterrence and denunciation;

6
The Charter

6. The Defendants as agents of the Crown are responsible for carrying out their duties in accordance
with all the applicable laws of Canada including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the
Constitution Act, 1982 (the “Charter”).

Section 7 Charter breach

7. Section 7 of the Charter provides that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.”

8. The actions and/or non-actions of the Defendants’ employees, servants and agents, as
particularized at Part 1 herein, including Sergeant Blair, constituted violations of the Plaintiff’s
section 7 right to security of person and were contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in
that they were arbitrary.

9. Further, the aforementioned actions and/or non-actions were contrary to the principle of
fundamental justice that the State be required to keep a person sentenced by the courts to
imprisonment in safe and humane custody.

Section 15 Charter breach

10. Section 15(1) of the Charter provides that:

“15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.

11. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, through the actions and/or inactions of their
employees, servants and agents, including Sergeant Blair, as set out in Part 1 herein, breached
the Plaintiff’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and
in particular, without discrimination based on race, ethnic origin and/or religion. The Plaintiff was
subjected to negative and differential treatment by employees, servants or agents of the
Defendants on the basis of his race, ethnic origin and/or religion.

7
Charter Damages

12. Pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter, the Plaintiff seeks both declarations and damages as the
appropriate remedy for the aforementioned violation of his Charter rights. All three functions of
an award for Charter damages (namely vindication, compensation and deterrence) are engaged.

13. A Charter damage award in this case in necessary to:

a. express society’s condemnation of the Defendants’ conduct;

b. provide an incentive to the Defendants to respect the Charter in the future;
c. ensure non-discriminatory, safe and effective treatment of incarcerated individuals in
the future;
d. provide proper compensation;
e. encourage plaintiffs to act in the public interest by bringing claims concerning
flagrant Charter violations;
f. achieve the goals of vindication, compensation and deterrence.

Plaintiff's address for service: c/o Grace, Snowdon & Terepocki LLP
201-2622 Montrose Ave, Abbotsford, BC V2S 3T6
Fax number address for service (if any): (604) 744 - 1065

Place of trial: Vancouver Supreme Court

The address of the registry is:

800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 2E1

Dated: June 24, 2019

______________________________________
Signature of [ ] Plaintiff [x] Lawyer

DAVID HONEYMAN
Grace, Snowdon & Terepocki LLP
201-2622 Montrose Avenue
Abbotsford, BC V2S 3T6

8
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,
(a) 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
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.

Appendix

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:

Torts of assault and battery; breach of Charter sections 7 and 15.

Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:

A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[x] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[x] a matter not listed here

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law

9
[x] constitutional law
[ ] conflict of laws
[ ] none of the above
[ ] do not know

Part 4:
Sections 7, 15 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

10