A Guelph man has failed in his bid to sue the Guelph Police Service and its former chief Bryan Larkin.
Michael George was suing police because he felt there was not enough evidence to warrant his arrest in 2012 on three arson-related charges stemming from an eight-year-old fire.
He was suing the police and Larkin on the grounds of negligent investigation.
George was eventually acquitted on charges of arson, disregard for human life and arson causing bodily harm but spent nine months in jail awaiting trial. He was seeking unspecified damages for the mental suffering.
That fire, at 325 York Road, seriously injured one man and resulted in roughly $100,000 in damage.
George remained in custody for nine months between his arrest and acquittal because he could not find a surety for his release.
Justice Jamie Trimble delivered his summary judgement last week. The hearing on the matter took place in June.
The arson case had been reopened by police when new information came to light eight years later. George was charged after his ex-spouse and son told police George had admitted to starting the fire.
George filed the suit because he felt there was not enough evidence to warrant his arrest.
George argued that there was "overwhelming evidence" that his ex-spouse and son were not credible witnesses and that "their stories ought not to have been believed" by police.
George also felt the investigation was negligent because police ignored forensic evidence from the fire department and that his ex and son had ulterior motives.
There was admittedly "bad blood" between George and his ex-spouse.
But the judge ruled that George's evidence was lacking and that he didn't provide evidence to back his claims.
He also relied on "hearsay," said the judge.
"The test for negligent investigation is whether the police had evidence which provided reasonable and probable grounds for laying the charge," Trimble wrote in his judgement.
"The police are entitled to rely on the uncorroborated statement of a witness, and should only disregard that statement when the plaintiff puts before the court 'overwhelming' evidence as to the witness's poor credibility."
The judge also pointed out that police lay charges when there are reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges, not whether those charges will result in a conviction.
They are not required to interview every possible witness, to evaluate or weigh evidence, or to accept the accused's version of events," Trimble wrote.
A decision on court costs will be made at a later date.
