The right of citizens to sue the police without being hindered by a police force’s internal complaints process has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“It represents an important vindication of the right of the citizen to sue police,” Julian Falconer, one the lawyers who argued the case, said Friday.

The appellant, Wayne Penner, was watching his wife’s trial in 2003 in a provincial offences court in St. Catharines, Ont., when he got into a squabble with Niagara Regional Police officers, who arrested him.

He claimed the officers assaulted him and laid a complaint under the Police Services Act. A police adjudicator later dismissed the complaint, concluding the arrest had been proper.

Then he sued for unlawful arrest, use of unnecessary force during and after arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit was dismissed prior to trial.

That dismissal was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court, which cited a legal doctrine that prevents the relitigation of an issue previously decided by a court or tribunal. It ruled the adjudicator’s conclusions were legally binding.

On Friday, however, in a four-to-three decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It found the use of the civilian complaints process against complainants was “a serious affront to basic principles of fairness.”

Falconer called the decision a recognition by the court that the police discipline process in Ontario is set up to serve a police chief’s internal discipline needs.

“It would do a grave injustice to allow that internal process, completely controlled by the chief of police, to then serve as a means of shielding the chief of police and his officers from liability,” Falconer said.

Penner’s lawsuit can now go ahead, he said.

“The practical effect of this is to return to judges their ultimate authority as guardians and protector over the rights of citizens as it relates to police officers. Obviously Mr. Penner deserves to have his day in court and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that.”