Police Services
Print this page
OVERVIEW
The Police Services Group is a novel legal practice that has not historically been treated as a specialty area of law. McCague Borlack LLP has developed the Police Services Group as a result of recognizing that police officers who are subjected to civil actions have special concerns not experienced in other professions. McCague Borlack LLP also provides to our clients with investigative services unique to the litigation industry.
SERVICES
Areas we cover:
Defence
McCague Borlack LLP recognizes that within policing there exists a special culture not common to other professions, and our team includes lawyers who have police experience themselves.
The invaluable behind-the-scenes experience that our Police Services Group lawyers possess gives them not only contacts, acquaintances, and relationships with countless other police officers in the area, but also an understanding of the day-to-day problems and issues facing the police and the types of liabilities and exposures that are inherent in providing the service. This relationship creates a special bond that enables our Police Services Group lawyers to assist the policing community in defending itself from civil liability claims, as well as in criminal, quasi-criminal, and regulatory matters.
Our Police Service Group lawyers are experienced in defending the following matters:
- malicious prosecution claims;
- false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive use of force claims;
- negligent investigation claims;
- defamation claims;
- invasion of privacy claims;
- claims brought under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
- criminal and regulatory complaints made against police.
Special Investigations
By virtue of their policing experience, our Police Services Group has special relationships with other ex-police officers who now work in private investigations, the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Investigate Services Division, insurance company special investigation units, and other forms of undercover services provided to the industry and the public.
Our lawyers are currently counsel to various investigative organizations, including the Canadian Independent Adjusters Association, the Canadian Association of Special Investigative Units, and the Council of Private Investigators. Most recently, we were successful in assisting insurance adjusters, independent adjusters, and private investigators obtain the “investigative body” status under the new federal privacy legislation, PIPEDA.
Our Police Services Group works closely with our Fraud Law Group and Investigation and Privacy Law Group, and our lawyers are members of our “24/7” Emergency Response Team that will attend whenever and wherever our clients seek on-scene assistance in the investigation or defence of any charge that may arise from any type of incident.
CHAIR(S)
MEMBER(S)
PUBLICATIONS
View All
Causation And Standard Of Proof For A Hypothetical Pre-Trial Loss
First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.
Misfeasance Claims against Crown Prosecutors - Case Study: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Clark, 2021 SCC 18
The Supreme Court of Canada slammed the door shut on misfeasance claims against Crown prosecutors in one of their most recent rulings. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reinforced the immunity of Crown prosecutors in their prosecution of criminal matters due to their unique positions in the justice system that requires them to be free from fear of civil liability in the execution of their duties.
Jury Questions: When to Ask for Reasons - Case Study: Cheung v. Samra 2020 ONSC 4904
In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.
The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...