Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as statute-barred under Alberta’s Limitations Act due to late filing beyond the two- and ten-year deadlines.

• The court found plaintiff failed to prove he was under a legal disability that suspended the limitation period under section 5 of the Limitations Act.

• Alleged police assault was not proven on a balance of probabilities and was contradicted by contemporaneous paramedic and officer notes.

• Officers’ notes and paramedic records were admitted under hearsay exceptions: business records and principled necessity and reliability grounds.

• Plaintiff’s credibility was diminished by inconsistencies, implausible testimony, and denial of indisputable facts found in documentary evidence.

• Even on the defendants’ version, force used was minimal and justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code to protect plaintiff’s safety after injury.

Background and incident

Kim Jock Ruach, a South Sudanese refugee residing in Calgary, sued the Calgary Police Service (CPS), alleging that on the night of August 7, 2007, while near Centre Street and 2nd Avenue SW, he was unlawfully assaulted by CPS officers. He claimed that while riding his bike, he stopped due to sweating and noticed a person in uniform running toward him. Fearing harm, he fled on foot, attempted to jump a metal fence three to four feet high, and believed he was struck on the leg by a thrown baton, causing him to fall. While on the ground, he claimed he was hit on both sides of the head with a baton and searched by the officer, who found $75 in cash.

Paramedic Catherine Ford, who attended the scene, testified she saw Mr. Ruach being held by police, was combative, and in visible distress. She observed a closed femur fracture and a bleeding laceration above his right eye. To prevent further injury, she and her partner sedated him, placed his leg in a traction splint, and used soft restraints during ambulance transport. Her patient care record noted that Mr. Ruach was running from police, attempted to jump a metal handrail, tripped, and fell—information she believed came directly from him. She testified that EMS and police uniforms were similar in appearance, which may have caused confusion.

According to contemporaneous notes from Csts. G. Stott and P. Canny, the officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction and pursued Mr. Ruach, who fled on a bicycle, fell, and then attempted to jump a railing. He fell to the ground and struck his head. One officer held him down with a baton to prevent him from moving and causing further harm. These notes were made within five hours of the incident and were admitted under both the business records and principled hearsay exceptions.

Mr. Ruach denied consuming drugs or alcohol, but hospital records from Foothills Medical Centre (FMC) showed the presence of alcohol, benzodiazepines (“benzo”), and cocaine. He was diagnosed with a left subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, right femur fracture, and a right facial laceration. After his August 18, 2007 discharge against medical advice, he began using crack cocaine daily and abusing alcohol until completing treatment in 2012. He claimed continuing physical and psychological difficulties, including PTSD, impaired memory, and paranoia, and attributed many of his hardships—including difficulties with legal aid and employment—to CPS interference.

Legal claims and limitation defence

Mr. Ruach filed his civil claim on January 10, 2022, over 14 years after the August 7, 2007 incident. The defendants pleaded statutory immunity under section 3 of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c. L-12, which provides that claims must be brought within two years of discovery and no later than ten years after the event. The burden shifted to Mr. Ruach to show he was a “person under disability” as defined in section 1(h)(ii) and protected by section 5 of the Act.

The court found that although Mr. Ruach had psychological diagnoses and cognitive challenges, he was not legally “under disability” for the necessary period. Between 2015 and 2016, he actively sought legal advice, spoke with duty counsel, and attempted to obtain representation through Legal Aid and Calgary Legal Guidance. He discussed the limitation period with social workers and occupational therapists and attempted to file a claim but was told it was too late. He also successfully appealed a denial of AISH benefits and pursued a human rights complaint—all without legal representation—demonstrating his ability to assess and act on legal matters.

The only medical support offered was a June 8, 2022 letter from Dr. Andrew S. Wong, stating Mr. Ruach had a “permanent and severe disability,” but the letter did not meet evidentiary standards under the Rules of Court nor establish the required legal test. The court ruled there was insufficient evidence that he was incapable of making reasonable decisions regarding a claim before January 10, 2020.

Assessment of the alleged assault

The court provisionally considered whether an unlawful assault occurred. Justice Poelman preferred the officers’ version of events, supported by paramedic records and observations. The court found it implausible that a baton would have been thrown just before a fence when, as Mr. Ruach himself testified, other officers were nearby. It was also unlikely a paramedic inserted an IV without speaking, as he claimed.

The court accepted that Ms. Ford administered the IV and that the officers held Mr. Ruach down for his safety. These actions were found to be justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46, which permits use of necessary force in the enforcement of law. The court rejected Mr. Ruach’s assertion that an internal CPS document (“Allegation Approval”) was proof his claims had been accepted; it merely authorized an investigation, which was later closed due to statutory time limits and insufficient evidence.

Outcome

Justice Poelman dismissed the claim for two independent reasons:

1. The action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, and

2. The plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that CPS officers assaulted him.

No assessment of damages was made, as the claim failed on liability grounds.

The plaintiff received no monetary compensation, and the defendants were entirely successful in defending the claim.