A London man who was arrested for a crime that never happened has filed a $1.1-million lawsuit against the police, the area public school board and the family of the girl who invented the assault.

Adam Gillespie, 26, says his life was “ripped apart” after London police arrested him, searched his home and kept him in a holding cell overnight three years ago.

After the arrest — which he alleges included hours of interrogation, before police abruptly let him go — the artist says he was the target a drive-by threat from someone calling him a sex offender.

His marriage also broke up, he moved back in with his father, became suicidal and ended up in a psychiatric ward, he said.

“Everything was ripped apart,” says Gillespie, 26.

“It changed me forever. I couldn’t stop thinking about it for so long. It was terrible. Police still stress me out. I see them in public and I feel so tense in my chest. “

He said he decided to sue mainly to force police to think about the impact such an arrest and detention can have on people.

His statement of claim alleges investigators were negligent in their investigation, failed to properly scrutinize false allegations and arrested someone who didn’t match the description of the suspect.

The suit also contends police searched Gillespie’s home unreasonably and that officers made a public display of their presence at his home, attracting the attention of neighbours and the community at large.

A statement of claim contains allegations not yet tested in court.

“I was singled out for the way I looked and they didn’t care. There was no apology. If police would have publicly said, ‘We made a mistake,’ there would be no lawsuit,” said Gillespie.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are the girl's parents and the Thames Valley District school board, which Gillespie contends failed to properly supervise the student at school and failed to competently investigative her claims.

The lawsuit contends the girl’s parents were “negligent in excercising reasonable supervision and control over the girl and that they are “in law” responsible for her actions.

Gillespie is seeking $500,000 each from the police and the school board, and $100,000 from the family of the girl, who cannot be identified.

The school board, police services board and the girl’s family have all filed statements of defence.

None would comment, but in their statement of defence the police called the lawsuit frivolous.

Gillespie was arrested at his home June 13, 2013, as a suspect in an assault on a 12-year-old girl who said she’d been attacked in the yard of Sir George Etienne Cartier public school, where she was a pupil.

The girl said she’d been attacked by a muscular man, about five-foot-two, in a ski mask, black gloves, boots and a grey hooded sweatshirt. The school went into lockdown mode, police put out a new release asking for public help identifying a suspect and officers began searching.

The next day, she would admit she invented the story.

Gillespie, nearly six feet tall, spent the night beforehand at police headquarters, being questioned.

Investigators tracked him down after someone at a grocery store near the school recalled seeing a man in a hoodie and boots. Police learned that man was Gillespie and that he’d left in a taxi.

Police knocked at his door at 4 p.m., arrested Gillespie, kept him in handcuffs in “full public view for an extended period of time,” and brought him in for questioning, according to the statement of claim.

“I was extremely co-operative,” he said in an interview.

“I thought it would all get cleared up . . . and it didn’t. I was in over my head.”

An hour later, some officers took him back home and, without showing him a search warrant, walked through the home and seized his identification, the lawsuit alleges.

During an interrogation that lasted two or three hours, Gillespie was told he’d been arrested for sexual assault. He asked to talk to a lawyer, but police “denied” the request claiming he’d spoken with a lawyer earlier, according to the statement of claim.

Gillespie told police he was likely on surveillance video from the grocery store. Officers said it would take time to review the evidence and left him in a holding cell overnight, the statement says.

It also contends he spent the night, shivering in his t-shirt, pants and socks, and fearing for his safety, then was released the next day by a detective who told him his alibi had checked out.

He took a cab home, but police officers were still there.

“The plaintiff was denied entry into his residence by officers who claimed a search warrant was still being sought,” the statement said. As a result of heavy police presence, neighbours knew why Gillespie had been arrested.

The next day, someone drove by the house, threw a glass bottle at Gillespie’s house and screamed “child molester,” the statement says.

“Due to personal and psychological ramifications arising out of the arrest as well as the continued public scrutiny, the plaintiff’s husband moved out of their shared residence and separated from the plaintiff one month after his arrest,” said the statement.

The police board defends the actions of investigating officers in its statement of defence.

“All actions taken by the LPS (London police service), including the arrest of the plaintiff and steps to obtain warrants, were all taken at times that the LPS had reasonable and probable grounds to support those actions,” it says.

The statement says Gillespie was “given the right to contact a lawyer which he indicated he did not wish to do.”

In their statement of defence, the girl’s parents “deny that they or either one of them” caused or contributed to Gillespie’s damages. They deny being responsible in law to their daughter’s false report, don’t agree Gillespie lost any income or suffered any damages due to their daughter’s actions and contend he “failed to return to work when reasonably fit to do so.”

The school board claims it took reasonable action in investigating the allegations made by the student. The parents and the school board call the alleged losses and damages sought “excessive,” and “remote.”

jlobrien@postmedia.com