Skip to content

Man charged with assaulting cops suing three officers, police service board

BY KEITH LACEY [email protected] A man currently on trial for assaulting police and other charges has launched a $300,000 lawsuit against three officers with the Greater Sudbury Police Service and the police services board.
BY KEITH LACEY

A man currently on trial for assaulting police and other charges has launched a $300,000 lawsuit against three officers with the Greater Sudbury Police Service and the police services board.

Haddlam Robinson, 45, alleges three officers-Const. Greg Smuland, Const. Victor Leroux and Const. Mark Kovala-used excessive force and beat him unconscious without any just cause Feb. 5, 2003.

The officers have testified in the criminal trial Robinson wouldn't leave the scene so they could continue their investigation into an accident involving Robinson's vehicle.

When they tried to remove him from the area, he struggled and grabbed at Smuland's service revolver and struggled when they tried to arrest him.

Robinson testified earlier this week on charges of assaulting two police officers, resisting arrest, assaulting his former girlfriend and breaching a court order.

Robinson, who is represented by Sudbury lawyer Charles Conroy, says in a statement of claim filed at the Sudbury Courthouse he is seeking general damages of $150,000, punitive and aggravated damages of $100,000, special damages of $20,000 and damages under the Family Law Act of $25,000, plus all related court costs.

Allegations made in a statement of claim have not been proven in any court of law and are simply the first step in filing a civil proceeding.

A statement of defence has been filed on behalf of the three officers and the police board and it denies all allegations made in the statement of claim.

As has been heard in the criminal trial, which is expected to resume and conclude over the next two weeks, Robinson was involved in a minor motor vehicle collision at the corner of King and Laforest streets in the Flour Mill the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003.

Kovala was the first officer on the scene and he met with Robinson to discuss what happened. There was no altercation between the officer and Robinson.

However, Smuland and Leroux arrived on the scene shortly thereafter and the scene quickly turned violent.

The statement of claim alleges, ?while Smuland and Leroux were speaking with Robinson, they became agitated with the plaintiff and without provokation or justification, attacked the plaintiff by grabbing his arms, the back of his neck and tripping him forcefully to the icy ground.?

It's alleged Leroux placed his knee on Robinson's back while he was face first on the ground and repeatedly struck him with his knee on his back and head and kicked him in the ribs several times.

The lawsuit claims Smuland also commenced striking Robinson in the head and face with his fists while Robinson was on the ground, while Kovala exited his cruiser and held Robinson's legs and torso.

Eventually, several other police officers arrived and jumped on Robinson until ?the assault terminate,? says the statement of claim.

?The plaintiff states and the fact is the defendants assaulted him without justification and persisted in their assault, using excessive force on him,? says the statement of claim.

The police board is named as a defendant for ?failing to properly train, supervise and control the defendants as officers, per se, and is responsible for their actions.?

The statement of claim alleges Robinson suffered serious injuries, including ?severe damage to his ribs and abdomen, including his internal organs, a closed head brain injury, extensive abrasions, cuts, swelling and bruising to his face, head, trunk and legs, vision difficulty, headaches, loss of three teeth with related pain and suffering...and significant emotional upset and he has persistent anxiety and fear while in the community.?

The statement of defence filed by Peter Archambault, who works for the City of Greater Sudbury, ?denies all allegations in the statement of claim.?

At all material times, the three officers and other officers on the scene ?did what needed to be done and to assist each other with respect to the plaintiff,? says the statement of defence.

Robinson, was at all times, ?verbally abusive to the defendants and other officers and was physically aggressive, resisting all attempts to calm and restrain him and to place him into custody. His aggression included pushing, pulling, biting, hitting and kicking as well as grabbing, pulling and holding onto the handgun of Smuland.?

The officers are required and authorized to carry out their duties in the administration and enforcement of the law and at all material times did their jobs properly in relation to this case, says the statement of defence.

The officers used ?as much force as was necessary and not more than what was necessary? at all material times during this incident, says the claim.

If Robinson suffered any grievious bodily harm, which is denied, the officers were justified in using necessary force...for their self preservation and other persons from death or grievous bodily harm.?

The board's function is not to train, supervise and control officers and claims made against the board are frivilous and without merit, states the statement of defence.

All proper steps were taken to ensure Robinson's health and safety while he was in custody, says the statement of defence.

If any of the acts alleged in the statement of claim did take place, which is denied, they were done ?in self-defence and without excessive use of force in the circumstances.?

If Robinson suffered damage, loss or injury as alleged, which is denied, such damage or loss was not caused by the three officers named, says the statement of defence.
Robinson was violent and aggressive, threatened the officers with bodily harm, struggled with the three defendants and other officers when he knew or ought to have known such behaviour could result in injury to himself, resisted arrest, grabbed at Smuland's gun and attempted to escape lawful custody, says the statement of claim.

The statement of claim concludes this is not an appropriate case for an award of damages and should be dismissed with Robinson responsible for all court costs.
Robinson's criminal trial is expected to hear from several civilian witnesses who were at the scene the day in question.