Delta’s police chief and his wife say a lawsuit brought against them is “frivolous and vexatious, and should be struck down.”
That’s according to a response filed April 19 regarding a civil claim, filed March 1 by Kirnjeet Kaur Sidhu in B.C. Supreme Court. Sidhu claims she was assaulted when sprayed with water from a garden hose allegedly held by Lorraine Dubord.
Sidhu said she was walking along Centennial Beach in June 2020 after a picnic with friends, but, with a rising tide, she found herself having to climb some rocks alongside the home of DPD Chief Neil Dubord and wife Lorraine.
It was then, Sidhu alleged, that Lorraine “made a proprietary claim to the foreshore, laughed and taunted the plaintiff about her weight and sprayed the plaintiff with water from a garden hose in the face, which was taken by the plaintiff as an act motivated by race,” according to her civil claim.
The claim said Lorraine’s alleged actions were done with “intent and such force as to cause injury to the plaintiff.”
The claim alleges the Dubords erected signs on rocks with the intent to claim a proprietary right to the foreshore.
Sidhu claims general and aggravated damages; emotional distress; injury to feelings, dignity, pride and self-respect; anxiety, long-term psychological issues and other injuries.
In the Dubords' response, they deny the incident occurred on the foreshore, with Lorraine also denying that she assaulted Sidhu.
“Ms. Dubord specifically denies that she laughed at or taunted the plaintiff about her weight, and that she sprayed water at the plaintiff, or that any aspect of Ms. Dubord’s interaction with the plaintiff was motivated by race,” says the response. “Instead, it was the plaintiff that directed aggressive, insulting and explicit language towards Ms. Dubord.”
According to the court documents, the couple admits they are the occupiers of the premises, but deny they owed Sidhu a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act.
“At all material times, the premises was reasonably safe for use by all persons including the plaintiff,” says the response. “The plaintiff had a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care and caution for her own safety and, if the alleged incident occurred as alleged or at all, and the plaintiff was injured (which is denied), the plaintiff is responsible for same.”
The response goes on to say that the cause of action is frivolous, vexatious and will embarrass the trial of the proceeding.
Neither filing has been heard before the courts.
With files from Jeremy Hainsworth/Glacier Media
