SCHEDULE "A"
Claim No. 842/2001

Gregg's version.

1. The defendants deny all allegations contained in the plaintiff's Amended Claim except as is hereinafter specifically admitted to.

2. The plaintiff and Howard Keith Henson were friends who were both engaged in organized ongoing protests against the Church of Scientology.

3. In or about late April, 2001, Mr. Henson, who was ordinarily a resident of the State of California, was convicted in the State of California for what in Canada would be known as uttering threats and hate crimes. Mr. Henson was to be sentenced by the court in California on May 16, 2001.

4. Prior to May 16, 2001, Mr. Henson fled from California and entered Canada, where he took up residence with the plaintiff.

5. At all material times, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that Mr. Henson had been convicted in California and had fled to Canada before sentencing hearing and was a fugitive from justice.

6. On or about May 16, 2001, the court in California issued a bench warrant for Mr. Henson's arrest upon his failure to appear at his sentencing hearing.

7. Subsequent to May 16, 2001, Immigration Canada issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Henson.

8. The defendants plead that prior to effecting the arrest of Mr. Henson, the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service had received information that not only had Mr. Henson been convicted of what in Canada would be known as uttering threats and hate crimes, he was also an explosives expert, and knowing that he was now a fugitive from justice, they decided to proceed very cautiously for their own protection.

9. On or about May 28, 2001, Mr. Henson was an occupant of the plaintiff's vehicle which was situate in the parking lot of a mall in Oakville. Members of the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service and members of the Tactical Response Unit of the Halton Regional Police Service arrested Mr. Henson and briefly detained the plaintiff before releasing the plaintiff in the parking lot.

10. The defendants specifically deny that any of the plaintiff's Charter rights were violated, and plead that they acted without malice and in accordance with due process of law.

11. The defendants specifically deny that any injuries were suffered by the plaintiff during or as a consequence of the arrest of Mr. Henson on May 28, 2001, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

12. The defendants plead that if the plaintiff has suffered injuries, loss or damage, which is not admitted but expressly denied, then the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune, inasmuch as he knew that Mr. Henson was a fugitive and had illegally entered Canada and that the authorities would be looking for him to arrest him.

13. The defendants state that at all material times they were acting in the performance or purported performance of a public duty, and plead that as a consequence of the plaintiff's action not having been commenced within six months of the date of Mr. Henson's arrest, pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.38, the plaintiff's action is statute barred.

14. The defendants plead and rely upon the provisions of section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and state that they at all material times acted with lawful authority and with no more force than they thought was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

15. The defendants specifically deny that they at any time libelled the plaintiff, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

16. The defendants therefore submit that the plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs.