SCHEDULE "A" Claim No. 841/2001
1. The defendants deny all allegations contained in the plaintiff's Amended Claim except as is hereinafter specifically admitted to.
2. The plaintiff is ordinarily a resident of the State of California.
3. In or about late April, 2001, the plaintiff was convicted in the State of California for what in Canada would be known as uttering threats and hate crimes. The plaintiff was to be sentenced by the court in California on May 16, 2001.
4. Prior to May 16, 2001, the plaintiff fled from California and entered Canada, where he took up residence with William Gregg Hagglund.
5. On or about May 16, 2001, the court in California issued a bench warrant for the plaintiff's arrest upon his failure to appear at his sentencing hearing.
6. Subsequent to May 16, 2001, Immigration Canada issued a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff.
7. The defendants plead that prior to effecting the arrest of the plaintiff, the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service had received information that not only had the plaintiff been convicted of what in Canada would be known as uttering threats and hate crimes, he was also an explosives expert, and knowing that he was now a fugitive from justice, they decided to proceed very cautiously for their own protection.
8. On or about May 28, 2001, members of the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service and members of the Tactical Response Unit of the Halton Regional Police Service arrested the plaintiff in the parking lot of a mall in Oakville as a requirement of the warrant issued by Immigration Canada.
9. The defendants specifically deny that any of the plaintiff's Charter rights were violated, and plead that they acted without malice and in accordance with due process of law.
10. The defendants specifically deny that any injuries were suffered by the plaintiff during or as a consequence of his arrest on May 28, 2001, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.
11. The defendants plead that following the plaintiff's arrest, the plaintiff was taken into the custody of Immigration Canada.
12. The defendants state that at all material times they were acting in the performance or purported performance of a public duty, and plead that as a consequence of the plaintiff's action not having been commenced within six months of the date of his arrest, pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.38, the plaintiff's action is statute barred.
13. The defendants plead and rely upon the provisions of section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and state that they at all material times acted with lawful authority and with no more force than they thought was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
14. The defendants therefore submit that the plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs.