Man who shot trespasser wants lawsuit dismissed
EDMONTON• Edouard Maurice, the Okotoks, Alta., man who had been criminally charged with firearm offences in 2018 for firing warning shots at intruders on his property, and is now being sued by the man who was hit with a ricochet, has asked to have the lawsuit tossed out, citing new United Conservative legislation that protects property owners from civil suits.
In November, the United Conservative government introduced Bill 27, which became law on Dec. 5, and, makes it more difficult for trespassers to sue for injuries received. Basically, in order to be sued, the landowner must not commit a crime and the trespasser must show the landowner’s response was wilfully and grossly disproportionate.
The changes, which the UC P cited as part of its fight against rural crime in Alberta, may well apply to this case.
“Our view is that effectively we meet the four corners of Bill 27,” said Scott Chimuk, Maurice’s lawyer. “( The bill) effectively means that there can be no claim, so the fact that they’re putting Eddie through the ringer ... is a bit offensive, frankly.”
Jessica Maurice, Edouard’s wife, told the Post that lawyers met on Tuesday to discuss the dismissal. The case, though, was put over until January, when court will reconvene.
“We think that ( Bill 27) should affect our case, should allow us to have the case dismissed,” she said.
The suit, which followed the dropping of criminal charges against Maurice in June 2018, dates back to September, when Maurice, who has become something of an iconic figure in a province wracked with fears over rural crime and the sense that if you defend yourself, and your property, the police will haul you away and not the criminal, was served with a lawsuit from Ryan Watson.
In court documents filed in Calgary in September, Watson, one of the two trespassers on the Maurice land outside of Okotoks, Alta., that night, said the injury to his right forearm resulted in “severe damages and liability” and sued Maurice for $100,000.
“As ... Watson was fleeing, without warning, ( Maurice) attempted to scare ( Watson) by shooting a 22-calibre rifle in his direction, but negligently hit the plaintiff in the right forearm,” the statement of claim says.
Watson faced several charges in relation to the events of that night, and was sentenced to 45 days in jail in February 2019, but, he walked free from the courthouse because of time served.
Watson says he required surgery to put a metal plate in his arm because of the wound and now suffers PTSD and emotional and physical discomfort.
The case led to a major outpouring of support for Maurice; thousands of dollars were crowdfunded for his legal defence, including a donation from Premier Jason Kenney.
In October, Maurice filed his statement of defence, and a counterclaim, seeking $ 150,000 from Watson, citing anxiety and fear the family has suffered since.
“Mr. Maurice suffered from mental distress, anxiety, nightmares and a fear of repetition,” says the counterclaim. “Given that he lives in a rural community, he continues to worry for the safety of his wife and two infant daughters.”
( Watson filed a response to that in early November, disputing several of the allegations in Maurice’s documents, saying he was on the property to get change for gasoline, and alleges Maurice pointed and fired the .22- calibre rifle directly at him and continued to do so as he fled the property.)
Bill 27, when it came into force, was retroactive, to Jan. 1, 2018, before the events of February 2018 that saw Watson injured, and Maurice charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and aggravated assault. Simply put, this means that should the provisions of the new rules apply in the suit between Watson and Maurice, the case ought to be tossed.
Devin Frank, a student-atlaw in Nelson & Nelson, the law firm representing Watson, said they’re considering a constitutional challenge and believe that it’s possible their client’s case could proceed, despite the changes from Bill 27.
“I think a lot of it turns on the dispute of the facts and then what the constitutional challenge would be, so there’s facts that are disputed that could bring this claim within the legislation,” said Frank.