Bardoscia v. Niagara
The case is significant in Canadian law in that it affirmed two very important things that seem to have been forgotten/disregarded by the Canadian law enforcement community in the aftermath of Bill C-68's implementation, namely:
- Merely being a gun owner does not mean that the police can disregard your Charter rights
- Misconduct at the hands of authorities does not come without consequences.
The plaintiff, 57 year old John Paul Bardoscia, was awarded a total of $45,534.92 in both pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary damages after Justice Taliano confirmed in his decision that police had, in fact, violated Bardoscia's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Contents |
[edit] Events leading to the case
John Bardoscia had been an avid collector of firearms for decades, with a substantial collection having been accumulated over that time. Prior to the events leading to this case, he had never been convicted of any criminal offence and has not been convicted of anything since (see below).
All of the following information is taken directly from the Agreed Statement of Facts in the case, which was filed with the court as Exhibit One.
On June 13, 1999, following a fire at his St. Catharines, Ontario, home, Bardoscia was arrested and charged with unsafe storage of the firearms[1]. While he was in custody, police illegally entered his home without a warrant (Detective Greg Sartor had applied for a search warrant and been refused). A warrant was issued later, without disclosure to the court of the illegal entry, which Sartor later admitted should have been done, and all of his firearms were seized by police while he was still in custody.
Bardoscia was released on bail of $2500 without deposit on June 16.
At his March 2, 2000 trial, the admissibility of the evidence was challenged. On April 3, 2000, Mr. Justice Jennis ruled that the evidence was admissible because the evidence had "existed before the Charter violation" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
The retrial was then re-scheduled for October 11, 2000 — at which time all charges against Bardoscia were dismissed at the request of the Crown, with no explanation given.
Bardoscia then decided to file suit for reparations for both his costs and suffering.
[edit] Decision
On June 4, 2004, Justice D. J. Taliano, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released his decision in the case. While Taliano found that the initial entry to the home, looking for victims of the fire, was perfectly justifiable, the second entry was in fact illegal. Not only was it illegal, but Taliano also noted in his decision, referring to Constables Weeks and Carter, "the fact that they were violating the plaintiff’s rights did not [even] occur to them."
Taliano fixed the award to Bardoscia as being $30,534.92 for pecuniary losses (legal costs and lost wages). He further fixed non-pecuniary damages at $15,000, noting that:
- "he was in detention for a period of four nights, suffered emotional stress resulting from his arrest, and humiliation because of the publicity that appeared in the local paper. In addition, he has been a gun collector for most of his life and guns are both his passion and his hobby. It was almost three years before his beloved guns were returned to him. "
The defendants did not choose to appeal the verdict.
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ↑ See:
s.86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which requires non-restricted firearms to be rendered inoperable by a secure locking device or to be stored in a container, receptacle, or room that is kept securely locked and is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken into and are not stored with cartridges unless the cartridges are stored in a container or receptacle that is securely locked and constructed so that it cannot readily be broken into, and
s.86(3), which applies to restricted weapons and requires the weapon to be both rendered inoperable and to be stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked.
