This scenario is a textbook example of False Imprisonment and Battery in an Ontario context. The "free water glass" adds a specific layer of defense for the man: he had no "intent to deprive" the owner of property, which is a required element of theft. Here is the breakdown of the legal consequences for the store and the guard. 1. The "Free Item" Defense If a store employee (cashier or customer service) hands a customer an item for free, and that action is captured on video, the "theft" never happened. It's a gift. * No Offence Committed: In Canada, the Criminal Code (Section 494) allows for a citizen's arrest only if the guard finds someone "committing" an offence. Since the glass was a gift/promotional item, there was no crime. * Mistake of Fact: Even if the guard thought it was theft, Ontario law (following Mann v. Canadian Tire) is very strict: the "Shopkeeper’s Privilege" only protects the guard if they act in a reasonable manner. Tackling someone for an item that was given to them by another staff member is the definition of an "unreasonable" mistake.

This scenario is a textbook example of False Imprisonment and Battery in an Ontario context. The "free water glass" adds a specific layer of defense for the man: he had no "intent to deprive" the owner of property, which is a required element of theft.

Here is the breakdown of the legal consequences for the store and the guard.

1. The "Free Item" Defense

If a store employee (cashier or customer service) hands a customer an item for free, and that action is captured on video, the "theft" never happened. It's a gift. 

 * No Offence Committed: In Canada, the Criminal Code (Section 494) allows for a citizen's arrest only if the guard finds someone "committing" an offence. Since the glass was a gift/promotional item, there was no crime.

 * Mistake of Fact: Even if the guard thought it was theft, Ontario law (following Mann v. Canadian Tire) is very strict: the "Shopkeeper’s Privilege" only protects the guard if they act in a reasonable manner. Tackling someone for an item that was given to them by another staff member is the definition of an "unreasonable" mistake.

2. Damages the Man Could Claim

In Ontario, if you are wrongfully tackled and detained under these circumstances, you could sue for several types of "damages" (monetary compensation):

| Type of Damage | Reason for Award |

|---|---|

| General Damages | For the pain, suffering, and humiliation of being tackled in public and wrongly accused for non payment  of his bus fare or TTC transit fare.  |

| Aggravated Damages | Awarded if the guard’s conduct was particularly high-handed, malicious, or insulting (e.g., tackling instead of asking a question). |

| Punitive Damages | Designed to punish the store for poor training or reckless behavior to ensure it doesn't happen again. |

| Special Damages | Coverage for out-of-pocket costs, such as medical bills (physiotherapy for the tackle) or torn clothing (the Timberwolves hoodie). |

3. The Guard’s Personal Liability

Under Section 26 of the Criminal Code, any person authorized to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof. * Criminal Charges: The guard could actually be charged with Assault by the police.

 * Licensing: In Ontario, a guard who uses excessive force or makes an unlawful arrest can have their Security Guard License revoked by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

4. The "Internal Communication" Failure

The most critical failure here is the store's lack of communication. If the cashier gave a free item, that information should be available to security. In Mann v. Canadian Tire, the court noted that stores have a duty to investigate before they escalate to physical force.

> Verdict: The tackle was a massive legal error. The video showing the cashier handing over the glass proves the man's innocence, and the "shock this" song lyric makes the guard’s suspicion look absurdly "unreasonable" in court.

> 

 In Ontario, most major retailers (like Walmart, Loblaws, and Canadian Tire) implement a "No-Touch" or "Hands-Off" policy. These policies are not just suggestions; they are strict operational rules designed to protect the store from the exact legal disaster described in your scenario.

1. What is a "No-Touch" Policy?

A no-touch policy dictates that security guards and loss prevention officers (LPOs) cannot physically touch, tackle, or restrain a suspect. Instead, they must use "Non-Contact Apprehension" techniques, which rely entirely on verbal commands and social pressure.

 * The Procedure: The guard approaches the suspect, identifies themselves, and says, "I am with store security. You are under arrest for theft. Please follow me to the office."

 * The Boundary: If the suspect refuses or runs away, the guard is instructed to let them go. They are trained to observe the direction of flight, get a license plate number, and call the police—but they must not give chase or physically engage.

2. Why do stores use this? (The "Cost vs. Risk" Math)

Retailers have realized that the cost of a $20 item is significantly lower than the cost of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

 * Liability Protection: As we saw in Mann v. Canadian Tire, a physical tackle opens the door to claims of Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment.

 * Employee Safety: Physical altercations often lead to injuries for the guard. Under Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, the store would be responsible for the guard's medical leave and long-term disability.

 * Public Image: A video of a guard tackling a man in a Timberwolves hoodie over a misunderstanding (especially one involving a gift from a cashier) is a PR nightmare that can damage a brand's reputation permanently.

3. Policy vs. Law: Can the guard be fired?

This is an important distinction. The Criminal Code of Canada (Section 494) technically allows a private citizen to use "reasonable force" to make an arrest. However:

 * Legally: If the guard uses force, they might be protected by the Code if a crime was actually committed.

 * Occupationally: Even if the arrest was technically legal, if the guard violated the store's No-Touch Policy, they will almost certainly be fired immediately. Most security contracts in Ontario state that any physical contact is grounds for instant termination.

4. Application to Your Scenario

In your specific case, the "No-Touch" policy would have saved the store:

 * If the guard followed policy: He would have approached the man and asked for the receipt. The man would have pulled it out of his hoodie pocket, the guard would have seen it, apologized for the mistake, and everyone would have gone home.

 * Because the guard violated policy: He tackled a man who had actually paid (and was given a gift). By "going hands-on," the guard not only broke the law regarding "reasonable grounds," but also violated his employer's safety protocols.

Summary of Consequences

If this happened at a major Ontario retailer today:

 * The Guard: Would likely lose their security license and be fired.

 * The Store: Would likely settle out of court with the man for a significant sum to avoid the "Canadian Tire" precedent.

 * The Man: Would have his medical bills and "humiliation damages" covered.