THUNDER BAY — False arrest and negligent investigation are just two of many claims brought by former Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs, his wife Marisa and their co-plaintiff Mary Voss in a multi-million dollar civil suit.
The Ontario Provincial Police and Thunder Bay Police Service hope to avoid going to trial to face those claims.
Lawyers for the various parties were in court Wednesday arguing the merits of a motion brought by the OPP and TBPS to have the false arrest and negligent investigation claims against the two police services dismissed.
The three plaintiffs were arrested on extortion charges on July 20, 2017 and acquitted on Feb. 20, 2020, following a 15-day trial in November 2019. The trial detailed alleged attempts by Keith and Marisa Hobbs and Voss to coerce the complainant into purchasing a house for Voss with threats of handing over incriminating evidence to police.
The judge ruled the Crown did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and found the complainant's testimony to not be credible. Justice Fletcher Dawson also said in his decision that the OPP investigator on the case had "a single-minded direction" and had made up his mind before looking at all the evidence.
On Sept. 17, 2020, Keith and Marisa Hobbs served notice of a suit against a number of institutions and individuals, seeking approximately $12.5 million in combined damages. Their numerous allegations include defamation and malicious prosecution as well as the false arrest and negligent investigation claims the police are now challenging.
Mary Voss filed a similar suit in 2022. The court is addressing both actions together.
Sarah Pottle, counsel for the OPP on the Hobbs suit, laid out the arguments for the dismissal.
She argued the claims could be thrown out on either of two issues.
The first is timeliness. She argued that the 2-year statute of limitations had run out between the investigation and arrest in 2017 and the Hobbs lawsuit, which was filled in 2020 — three years later.
The second issue, Pottle argued, is that the claims do not meet a fundamental threshold.
For a claim of either false arrest or negligent investigation, she noted, it is essential to establish that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds.
Pottle argued that because the extortion charges against Keith and Marisa Hobbs survived a preliminary hearing and went to trial, that the preliminary ruling can be considered evidence that the police did have reasonable and probable grounds to lay those charges.
In response, Tamar Friedman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued the clock should only start on the statute of limitations after the acquittal, which would mean the suit was filed in plenty of time.
She also argued it would be unreasonable, and even harmful to the judicial process, to expect a defendant in a criminal trial to sue for false arrest before the criminal matter was resolved and in the case of a false arrest or negligent investigation case the acquittal is necessary to the claim.
Friedman also disputed the idea that the preliminary hearing decision was strong enough evidence on its own to say conclusively that the police did have reasonable and probable grounds.
She suggested that the motion to dismiss was premature, saying there is still evidence yet to be disclosed that would be relevant to the question of reasonable and probable grounds.
Justice Robert Centa had questions for both plaintiffs and the defence on the legal precedents and the validity of some of the evidence brought forward from the preliminary hearing.
Over the course of the hearing lawyers on both sides suggested the laws themselves might be flawed, or unaddressed in case history. Pottle said at one point that Centa “might be the first” to address the presumptions on when the statute of limitations clock begins.
If these two claims are dismissed, he acknowledged there could be a significant impact on the remaining claims and defendants.
Centa will now consider the matter and said he expected to have a decision by the end of January.
