A Yukon Supreme Court justice has ordered certain information to be struck from a statement of claim of a man suing the RCMP for alleged racial discrimination, unlawful arrests, detention and abuse.

Justice John Vertes released his 18-page written decision on July 5.

This case centres on a lawsuit between Mandeep Singh Sidhu and the Attorney General of Canada and several RCMP constables and corporals.

The application subject to this decision was filed by the Attorney General. It asked the court for a summary judgment and to strike out parts of Sidhu’s statement off claim.

The reasoning is that part of the claim has passed its statute of limitations and that Sidhu did not plead on material facts. The Attorney General argued that it would be prejudicial for all this to stand.

The defendants filed this application on May 21.

Sidhu is alleging that he faced racial discrimination by the RCMP over several years. He claims to have suffered this discrimination when police stopped his vehicle and detained, questioned and arrested him.

He is asking the court for damages resulting from physical and psychological injuries as well as financial loses.

“The primary claim being advanced is that of racial discrimination, that being a breach of his equality rights under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Vertes said in the decision.

He went over some background before getting to his reasons.

Sidhu kicked off his lawsuit on Nov. 20, 2014, and amended his statement of claim on May 21, 2015. This outlined the various instances of alleged discrimination he claims to have faced from the RCMP between 2006 and 2011.

The defendants asked the court to strike information from the statement of claim in 2015, for the same reason detailed above. The court granted that request on Nov. 17, 2015. Sidhu appealed that decision and lost on June 10, 2016.

An amended statement of claim was then filed. This new claim describes interactions between Sidhu and the RCMP on Aug. 23, 2011, May 16, Dec. 2 and 5, 2012 and June 4, 2016.

Sidhu claimed he was unlawfully detained after being allegedly improperly arrested, and facing malicious prosecution. He added he faced alleged assault, battery and racial discrimination.

Vertes next addressed the summary judgment application. He explained that the court does have the authority to grant this request provided it’s demonstrated that there is no merit to the claim.

“The question is whether the claim is bound to fail,” Vertes said in the decision.

He added that a claim that has passed the statute of limitation can also be dismissed. The defendants claim four paragraphs of Sidhu’s claim have gone past the two-year limit.

This would make inadmissible any incident that took place before Nov. 20, 2012, two years before the original claim.

Vertes said Sidhu claims he was unlawfully arrested on Aug. 23, 2011 and was sedated before being transported to the Whitehorse General Hospital.

He was charged, but these counts were stayed. This was outlined in some of the suspect paragraphs.

The remaining paragraphs outline further allegedly arbitrary roadside stops.

Sidhu argued that the limitation period is six years, not two. This is due to him claiming his Section 15 Charter rights were breached.

He described the incidents as a “trespass to the person” or “injury to the person”.

Vertes said such a claim would need to demonstrate that there is a pattern of conduct. Sidhu claims this pattern exists and is made up of individual incidents.

Vertez disagreed. He ruled that this was concurrent actions in tort.

Legally, this meant the limitation period would be two years. He struck the applicable paragraphs from the statement of claim.

“The point is that the claims in tort are subject to the applicable limitation period,” Vertes said in the decision.

He next addressed issues of striking information that was improperly plead.

Part of the information is a restatement of pleadings that were ordered struck by the Court of Appeal. Vertes said the allegations are vague, and thus the defendants don’t know the case that must be met. He struck that portion.

The defendants asked that the names of the RCMP constables and corporals be removed.

They argued that there was no purpose in including the names. Vertes felt it was appropriate to grant this request and ordered the names be dropped.

He made several additional orders, including that Sidhu revise his claim as per the struck information.

He must deliver the revised claim to the defendants within 30 days of the decision. There can be no more amendments to the claim unless the court gives leave allowing it.

“Considering the history of this matter, I think it only prudent that any further amendment that either party wishes to make should be scrutinized by way of an application made beforehand,” Vertez said.

“There is no point in continuing with amendments and then having motions to strike.”

He also awarded the defendants costs.