Tenant had altercation with officers responding to call from landlady who alleged assault
The Ontario Superior Court has dismissed an application filed by a tenant who alleged that police officers had unlawfully arrested and used excessive force against her when responding to a call from her landlady, who claimed the tenant had assaulted her.
In November 2020, A. McMeekin and T. Burke – two police constables (PC) of the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) – went to an apartment building in St. Catharines in response to the landlady’s call.
At the apartment of the applicant in Mattila v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2026 ONSC 798, she and PC McMeekin had a physical altercation. The applicant, who was a doctor, sustained numerous injuries.
The officers arrested the applicant for assaulting the landlady and PC McMeekin. Police brought her to the hospital due to her injuries and released her on an undertaking with conditions that she refrain from consuming alcohol and communicating with the landlady.
In February 2021, a variation of the undertaking removed the condition requiring the applicant to abstain from alcohol. She faced criminal charges in connection with the alleged assaults.
In April 2021, police constables T. Arp and A. Oreskovich responded to a noise complaint at the apartment building. After investigating briefly, the officers arrested the applicant for breaching her undertaking by communicating with the landlady and consuming alcohol.
The applicant faced a criminal charge relating to breaching the non-communication condition. In August 2021, the Crown stayed all charges against her under s. 579(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985.
In October 2022, before the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIRPD), the applicant filed complaints alleging that the officers involved in the investigations leading to the charges engaged in misconduct. Specifically, she alleged that:
The Niagara Police Professional Standards Unit (PSU) investigated the complaints. In May 2023, based on the PSU’s report, the NRPS police chief considered the complaints unsubstantiated and saw insufficient evidence for the misconduct allegations.
In August 2023, following a review, the OIRPD director confirmed the chief’s decision. The applicant applied for a judicial review of the director’s decision. She asserted various factual and legal errors.
During oral arguments, the applicant narrowed her application. She no longer pursued her complaints against the officers’ alleged use of excessive force and the arrest on the grounds that she assaulted the landlady.
Instead, the applicant focused on her arrests for assaulting an officer and for breaching the deleted alcohol-related condition in the undertaking.
The applicant wanted the court to set aside the director’s declaration that she was guilty of criminal offences and order the NRPS to change how it trained its officers.
The applicant argued that the director erred in finding grounds for the arrest and deeming the complaint unsubstantiated. She added that the director failed to duly consider alleged inconsistencies in PC McMeekin’s notes and statements.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application and ordered no costs.
The court emphasized its narrow jurisdiction on a judicial review application. The court acknowledged that it could not grant the broad remedies requested or substitute the director’s view of the evidence with its own.
However, the court confirmed that the applicant was legally innocent of the charges that the Crown had stayed. The court noted that these charges against her had never proceeded.
Regarding the director’s “declaration of guilt,” the court pointed out that the director could not and did not declare the applicant guilty.
The court explained that the director did not find the assertions that the applicant had committed criminal offences to be true. Instead, the court said the director merely summarized the officers’ assertions and the applicant’s submissions.
Regarding the arrest for assaulting an officer, the court saw no basis to deem the director’s decision unreasonable. The court noted that the director considered all the evidence, including the applicant’s submissions.
Lastly, the court accepted that the officers should not have arrested the applicant for failing to comply with the undertaking’s deleted condition regarding alcohol.
However, the court held that the director reasonably found the arrest lawful. The court explained that the basis of this arrest also included the failure to comply with the undertaking by communicating with the landlady.
