Judges and Court Staff Have a Duty to Assist Unrepresented People

A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision re confirmed the duty of judges and court staff to assist that many times unrepresented people fail to receive, which could and often should invalidate the court process against them.

Here are a few recent articles and the relevant court decisions and the Canadian Judicial Council report laying out the principles quite clearly. Good to know.

Ian Mulgrew: Self-represented litigants get a begrudging break

Ian MulgrewIan Mulgrew

More from Ian Mulgrew Published on: May 8, 2017 |

Self-represented litigants have won a big victory at the Supreme Court of Canada, but it was like pulling teeth.

Treating people without lawyers fairly seems like motherhood-and-apple-pie and the court being asked to do the work of the angels, but you’d never have known it.

That’s because so many self-represented litigants are so difficult to deal with.

In the end, however, a unanimous high bench endorsed the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 statement of principles on self-represented litigants that judges should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

Importantly, this includes the advice that judges should make referrals to agencies who can provide support – but there’s no money attached.

Although this case involved a clear-cut personal injury action brought by a Calgary man, Valentin Pintea, after a 2007 Alberta car crash, it raised important issues for tens of thousands of self-represented litigants navigating the country’s often inscrutable legal system.

Still, the justices all but gritted their teeth throughout submissions about what caused an Alberta judge who seemed to show the patience of Job to finally snap.

MORE here PDF of Article Ian Mulgrew, Self-represented litigants, the courts.pdf

Court weighs in on self-represented litigants

Alex Robinson

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201705236182/headline-news/court-weighs-in-on-self-represented-litigants

PDF Court weighs in on self-represented litigants.pdf

Supporting the Unrepresented: Case Management of Self-Represented Litigants

http://ablawg.ca/2016/06/15/supporting-the-unrepresented-case-management-of-self-represented-litigants/

Posted onJune 15, 2016byAlena Storton

By: Alena Storton

PDF Version: Supporting the Unrepresented: Case Management of Self-Represented Litigants

Case Commented on:Pintea v Johns, 2016 ABCA 99 (CanLII)

The Alberta Court of Appeal addressed the need for balance between supporting self-represented litigants and maintaining a fair trial in Malton v Attia, 2016 ABCA 130 (CanLII), while deciding an appeal regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias by a trial judge. The Court noted that judges have a responsibility to ensure that self-represented individuals are given fair access to and equal treatment by the court, which may include judges providing information regarding the law and evidentiary requirements. It is clear that this responsibility does not relieve self-represented litigants from the obligation to prepare their own case and familiarize themselves with court procedures (at para 31). Ultimately, the Court made the following statement about the balance between supporting self-represented litigants and maintaining a fair trial:

While a trial judge may, therefore, allow some leeway to the self-represented litigant and provide some assistance, particularly in procedural matters, he or she must not become an advocate for the litigant. Nor can a trial judge allow assistance to a self-represented litigant to override the right of a represented litigant to a fair trial (at para 34).

The Court went on to reaffirm the importance of judicial impartiality. It determined that a judge must be free from actual bias, as well as seen as being free from bias in order to avoid a reasonable apprehension of bias (at para 81).

Canadian Judicial Council Issues Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons

Ottawa, 12 December 2006 The Canadian Judicial Council issued a statement of principles today on self-represented persons, to foster equal access to justice and equal treatment under the law.

Commenting on the principles, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada and Chairperson of the Council, said Ensuring better access to justice is a Council priority. The Council views the increasing numbers of self-represented persons who appear in the court system as a serious matter. These principles will assist key participants in the justice system to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment in the courts.

Publication of the Statement of Principles follows extensive work by a committee of the Council chaired by the Honourable Marc Monnin, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. He praised the contributions of all those who participated in the development of the document.

Chief Justice Monnin pointed out that the Principles are advisory in nature and are not intended to be a code of conduct. However, judges and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote opportunities for all persons to understand and meaningfully present their case, whether or not they have legal representation.

After a detailed examination of the issue, the Committee concluded that self-represented persons are generally uninformed about their rights and about the consequences of the options they choose, said Chief Justice Monnin. They may find court procedures complex, confusing and intimidating and they often do not have the knowledge or skills to participate actively and effectively in their own litigation.

The guidelines underscore the need for better information and tools for those who wish to represent themselves, added Monnin. All parties to the system have a role to play in promoting equal access to justice for everyone, as well as for the timely and efficient administration of justice.

The Council hopes that the Statement of Principles will be a useful tool to foster better access to justice for Canadians.

The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts. The Council’s web site address is http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca

For further information:

Contact Norman Sabourin, Executive Director and General Counsel, 613-288-1566, extension 301.

Media Backgrounder

The CJC Statement of Principles (Highlights)

A. To promote rights of access:

  • Access to justice for those who represent themselves requires that all aspects of the court process be open, transparent, clearly defined, simple, convenient and accommodating.
  • The court process should, to the extent possible, be supplemented by processes including case management, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures, and informal settlement conferences presided over by a judge.
  • Information, assistance and self-help support, self-represented persons should be made available through the normal means of information, including pamphlets, telephone and courthouse inquiries, legal clinics and internet searches.
  • All self-represented parties should be:

    1. Informed of the potential consequences and responsibilities of proceeding without a lawyer;
    2. Referred to available sources of representation, including those available from Legal Aid, pro bono assistance and community and other services;
    3. Referred to other appropriate sources of information, education, advice and assistance.

B. To promote equal justice

  • Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
  • Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
  • Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
  • Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:

    1. may explain the process;
    2. inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
    3. make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
    4. provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
    5. modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
    6. question witnesses.

C. Responsibilities of the participants in the justice system both justices and court administrators

  • Judges and court administrators should meet the needs of self-represented persons for information, referral, simplicity and assistance.
  • Forms, rules and procedures should be developed which are understandable to and easily accessed by self-represented persons.
  • To the extent possible, judges and court administrators should develop packages for self-represented persons and standardized court forms.
  • Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case.

For the full document please see:

REPORT http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf

DOWNLOAD PDF CJC-PrinciplesSelf-represented Litigants2006_en.pdf

ALL Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) PUBLICATIONS http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_pub_all_en.asp

CJC Ethical Principles for Judges http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf DOWNLOAD PDF Download-pdf

Canadian Guide to the Uniform Preparation of Judgments

news_pub_techissues_GuidelinesCM_20020930_en.pdf

CASES

Citation: Malton v Attia, 2016 ABCA 130

Citation: Pintea v Johns, 2016 ABCA 99

SCC Decison https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16589/index.do

Pintea v. Johns

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 2017-04-21
Neutral citation 2017 SCC 23
Case number 37109

Interveners National Self-Represented Litigants Project, Pro Bono Ontario and Access Pro Bono

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=37109

JUDGMENT

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 1501-0047-AC, 2016 ABCA 99, dated May 2, 2016, was heard on April 18, 2017 and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally:

Karakatsanis J. – The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders.

As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.

We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.

Judges and Court Staff Have a Duty to Assist Unrepresented People

A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision re confirmed the duty of judges and court staff to assist that many times unrepresented people fail to receive, which could and often should invalidate the court process against them.

Here are a few recent articles and the relevant court decisions and the Canadian Judicial Council report laying out the principles quite clearly. Good to know.

Ian Mulgrew: Self-represented litigants get a begrudging break

Ian MulgrewIan Mulgrew

More from Ian Mulgrew Published on: May 8, 2017 |

Self-represented litigants have won a big victory at the Supreme Court of Canada, but it was like pulling teeth.

Treating people without lawyers fairly seems like motherhood-and-apple-pie and the court being asked to do the work of the angels, but you’d never have known it.

That’s because so many self-represented litigants are so difficult to deal with.

In the end, however, a unanimous high bench endorsed the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 statement of principles on self-represented litigants that judges should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

Importantly, this includes the advice that judges should make referrals to agencies who can provide support – but there’s no money attached.

Although this case involved a clear-cut personal injury action brought by a Calgary man, Valentin Pintea, after a 2007 Alberta car crash, it raised important issues for tens of thousands of self-represented litigants navigating the country’s often inscrutable legal system.

Still, the justices all but gritted their teeth throughout submissions about what caused an Alberta judge who seemed to show the patience of Job to finally snap.

MORE here PDF of Article Ian Mulgrew, Self-represented litigants, the courts.pdf

Court weighs in on self-represented litigants

Alex Robinson

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201705236182/headline-news/court-weighs-in-on-self-represented-litigants

PDF Court weighs in on self-represented litigants.pdf

Supporting the Unrepresented: Case Management of Self-Represented Litigants

http://ablawg.ca/2016/06/15/supporting-the-unrepresented-case-management-of-self-represented-litigants/

Posted onJune 15, 2016byAlena Storton

By: Alena Storton

PDF Version: Supporting the Unrepresented: Case Management of Self-Represented Litigants

Case Commented on:Pintea v Johns, 2016 ABCA 99 (CanLII)

The Alberta Court of Appeal addressed the need for balance between supporting self-represented litigants and maintaining a fair trial in Malton v Attia, 2016 ABCA 130 (CanLII), while deciding an appeal regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias by a trial judge. The Court noted that judges have a responsibility to ensure that self-represented individuals are given fair access to and equal treatment by the court, which may include judges providing information regarding the law and evidentiary requirements. It is clear that this responsibility does not relieve self-represented litigants from the obligation to prepare their own case and familiarize themselves with court procedures (at para 31). Ultimately, the Court made the following statement about the balance between supporting self-represented litigants and maintaining a fair trial:

While a trial judge may, therefore, allow some leeway to the self-represented litigant and provide some assistance, particularly in procedural matters, he or she must not become an advocate for the litigant. Nor can a trial judge allow assistance to a self-represented litigant to override the right of a represented litigant to a fair trial (at para 34).

The Court went on to reaffirm the importance of judicial impartiality. It determined that a judge must be free from actual bias, as well as seen as being free from bias in order to avoid a reasonable apprehension of bias (at para 81).

Canadian Judicial Council Issues Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons

Ottawa, 12 December 2006 The Canadian Judicial Council issued a statement of principles today on self-represented persons, to foster equal access to justice and equal treatment under the law.

Commenting on the principles, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada and Chairperson of the Council, said Ensuring better access to justice is a Council priority. The Council views the increasing numbers of self-represented persons who appear in the court system as a serious matter. These principles will assist key participants in the justice system to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment in the courts.

Publication of the Statement of Principles follows extensive work by a committee of the Council chaired by the Honourable Marc Monnin, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. He praised the contributions of all those who participated in the development of the document.

Chief Justice Monnin pointed out that the Principles are advisory in nature and are not intended to be a code of conduct. However, judges and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote opportunities for all persons to understand and meaningfully present their case, whether or not they have legal representation.

After a detailed examination of the issue, the Committee concluded that self-represented persons are generally uninformed about their rights and about the consequences of the options they choose, said Chief Justice Monnin. They may find court procedures complex, confusing and intimidating and they often do not have the knowledge or skills to participate actively and effectively in their own litigation.

The guidelines underscore the need for better information and tools for those who wish to represent themselves, added Monnin. All parties to the system have a role to play in promoting equal access to justice for everyone, as well as for the timely and efficient administration of justice.

The Council hopes that the Statement of Principles will be a useful tool to foster better access to justice for Canadians.

The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts. The Council’s web site address is http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca

For further information:

Contact Norman Sabourin, Executive Director and General Counsel, 613-288-1566, extension 301.

Media Backgrounder

The CJC Statement of Principles (Highlights)

A. To promote rights of access:

  • Access to justice for those who represent themselves requires that all aspects of the court process be open, transparent, clearly defined, simple, convenient and accommodating.
  • The court process should, to the extent possible, be supplemented by processes including case management, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures, and informal settlement conferences presided over by a judge.
  • Information, assistance and self-help support, self-represented persons should be made available through the normal means of information, including pamphlets, telephone and courthouse inquiries, legal clinics and internet searches.
  • All self-represented parties should be:
    1. Informed of the potential consequences and responsibilities of proceeding without a lawyer;
    2. Referred to available sources of representation, including those available from Legal Aid, pro bono assistance and community and other services;
    3. Referred to other appropriate sources of information, education, advice and assistance.

B. To promote equal justice

  • Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
  • Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
  • Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
  • Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
    1. may explain the process;
    2. inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
    3. make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
    4. provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
    5. modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
    6. question witnesses.

C. Responsibilities of the participants in the justice system both justices and court administrators

  • Judges and court administrators should meet the needs of self-represented persons for information, referral, simplicity and assistance.
  • Forms, rules and procedures should be developed which are understandable to and easily accessed by self-represented persons.
  • To the extent possible, judges and court administrators should develop packages for self-represented persons and standardized court forms.
  • Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case.

For the full document please see:

REPORT http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf

DOWNLOAD PDF CJC-PrinciplesSelf-represented Litigants2006_en.pdf

ALL Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) PUBLICATIONS http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_pub_all_en.asp

CJC Ethical Principles for Judges http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf DOWNLOAD PDF Download-pdf

Canadian Guide to the Uniform Preparation of Judgments

news_pub_techissues_GuidelinesCM_20020930_en.pdf

CASES

Citation: Malton v Attia, 2016 ABCA 130

Citation: Pintea v Johns, 2016 ABCA 99

SCC Decison https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16589/index.do

Pintea v. Johns

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 2017-04-21
Neutral citation 2017 SCC 23
Case number 37109

Interveners National Self-Represented Litigants Project, Pro Bono Ontario and Access Pro Bono

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=37109

JUDGMENT

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 1501-0047-AC, 2016 ABCA 99, dated May 2, 2016, was heard on April 18, 2017 and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally:

Karakatsanis J. – The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders.

As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.

We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.

The Royal Family Appreciates Your Gifts of Your Wealth

  Published on Apr 12, 2016 The Royal Family is up to more than you think. Sex-scandals, Diana-murder, hidden past and more! Where does there money come from? Who really makes the family rules? Find out the secrets! Sources: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/ev… http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnx… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew… http://www.scientificamerican.com/art… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… http://www.people.com/people/package/… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newst… http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/… http://www.inquisitr.com/1492304/prin… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… http://www.thebakerypoetry.com/inspec… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w… http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi… http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/diana… … Continue reading The Royal Family Appreciates Your Gifts of Your Wealth →

The Royal Family Appreciates Your Gifts of Your Wealth

  Published on Apr 12, 2016 The Royal Family is up to more than you think. Sex-scandals, Diana-murder, hidden past and more! Where does there money come from? Who really makes the family rules? Find out the secrets! Sources: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/ev… http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnx… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew… http://www.scientificamerican.com/art… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… http://www.people.com/people/package/… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newst… http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/… http://www.inquisitr.com/1492304/prin… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… http://www.thebakerypoetry.com/inspec… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w… http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi… http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/diana…Continue reading The Royal Family Appreciates Your Gifts of Your Wealth

Oh Canada, You Can Hold Corrupt Police to Account for $$$

Ontario man who wanted to be a cop wins $25,000 after suing police for beating, jailing him unlawfully January 3, 2017,  National Post

read the comments if you want to see how people view the police brutality and the low payment of damages.

Considering that the guy was hit, held in jail, had to go to court for false charges, charged his career path (or was pushed out of it) and apparently took 8 years to get through the courts, $25,000 is a pretty minimal amount of money to be awarded.

 

PDF Printout of Article – Ontario man who wanted to be a cop wins $25,000 after suing police for beating, jailing him unlawfully

Decision – Garrett Rollins Link to Decision

[39]      The following issues arise in this case:

(1)   What actually occurred in the interaction between police and Mr. Rollins in the early morning of August 14, 2008?

(2)   Do the actions of the police officers constitute an assault on Garett Rollins and, if so, what are the damages?

(3)   Do the actions of PC Pouli constitute false arrest and, if so, what are the damages?

(4)   Do the actions of PC Pouli constitute malicious prosecution and, if so, what are the damages?

(5)   Do the actions of PC Pouli constitute a breach of the Charter rights of Mr. Rollins and, if so, what are the damages?

(6)   Is Mr. Rollins entitled to punitive or exemplary damages and, if so, in what amount?


Full Article Text Below- National Post Jan. 2017

Ontario man wins $25,000 after suing police for beating

Ontario man who wanted to be a cop wins $25,000 after suing police for beating, jailing him unlawfully

Garrett Rollins was about to start a police-foundations course, the first step toward a dream career in law enforcement, when he and friends gathered for his 19th birthday party.

By the time the bash in Niagara Falls, Ont. was over, Rollins was bloodied, bruised, in jail – and reconsidering his choice of occupation.

Now a judge has awarded him $25,000 in damages after finding the police officers who raided the party beat him repeatedly and without provocation and subjected him to a wrongful arrest and prosecution.

The traumatic incident, noted the judge last Friday after a rare civil trial on police-brutality allegations, “altered his future career plans forever.” Rollins now works as a real estate agent.

Constable Matt Pouli “overreacted. He punched Mr. Rollins,” said Justice Paul Sweeny of Ontario’s Superior Court. “When Mr. Rollins went down on the ground, PC Pouli continued to strike him. Mr. Rollins was bleeding from the face … PC Pouli was the aggressor and applied force to Mr. Rollins without his consent and with no justification at law.”

A spokesman for the Niagara Regional Police Service was not immediately available for comment on the case.

Rollins said Tuesday he wanted to consult with others before speaking at length, but said the incident in 2008 had lasting effects.

“It changed my life,” he said in a brief interview. “I was in police foundations and I got assaulted and, you know, I dropped out as a result. I still have problems to this day because of that incident.”

The episode began in the early morning of Aug. 14 when police entered a home in Niagara Falls to clear out the birthday party after noise complaints from neighbours.

Pouli and another officer who testified at the trial said there was fighting when they arrived and that partygoers were swearing at them and calling them “pigs.” Pouli said Rollins was getting in his face and at one point grabbed him by the arm.

The officer says he told the teenager he was under arrest and that Rollins, a muscular amateur boxer, then put up his hands in a fighting stance, so he hit him with an open hand, then handcuffed him after he fell to the floor.

But Justice Sweeny said he believed other witnesses, who said Rollins as the host was helping escort people out of the house, not hindering police.

When Const. Benjamin Tomiuck pushed a female partygoer against the wall, Rollins challenged him, saying “Can you do that?”

“We can do whatever the f- we want,” Tomiuck replied, according to the ruling.

When Rollins said the officers didn’t have to be “such dicks,” Pouli took exception and struck the man, sending him to the concrete floor, before hitting him repeatedly on the ground.

“The blood was smeared all over the floor,” said Justice Sweeny. “Mr. Rollins did not take a fighting stance or invite PC Pouli to fight … It is not reasonable to believe Mr. Rollins, a person who was enrolled in a police foundations course, would want to fight a police officer. In any event, given his boxing experience, it is unlikely he could have been subdued as easily as he was.”

Outside the house, the officer banged Rollins’ head against the police cruiser before placing him inside, the judge said.

The assault left him with a “goose-egg” bump on his head, a chipped tooth, split lip, cuts and abrasions.

Charged with assaulting an officer and resisting arrest, Rollins was held in jail overnight, but acquitted of all charges at a later trial.

The judge awarded $5,000 for assault, $2,500 for false arrest, $11,000 for malicious prosecution and $10,000 in punitive damages, the latter designed to express “the court’s disapproval of the wrongdoer’s conduct.”

SOURCE – http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ontario-man-who-wanted-to-be-a-cop-wins-25000-after-suing-police-for-beating-jailing-him-unlawfully