Victims of Mississauga restaurant bombing file suit against Bombay Bhel
Posted August 21, 2018 11:13 am.
Last Updated August 21, 2018 2:49 pm.
This article is more than 5 years old.
Six of the 15 people injured in a bombing west of Toronto in May are suing the restaurant where the incident took place, their lawyers said Tuesday, alleging the business’s owners and managers failed to take precautions to protect them.
Each plaintiff is suing Bombay Bhel, the Mississauga restaurant where the bombing happened, for $1 million, according to a statement of claim filed on Monday and announced at a news conference on Tuesday.
Investigators have alleged two suspects detonated an improvised explosive device in the restaurant on the evening of May 24 before running away and then jumping into an unidentified vehicle.
No arrests have been made in the case.
The victims’ statement of claim suggested the restaurant failed to hire “a sufficient” amount of security, alleging it was involved in a rumoured “turf war” with a rival business and should have known it could be the target of a bombing.
A lawyer representing the injured in the case read a statement on behalf of his clients, three of whom were at the news conference but did not speak.
“It is our belief that this tragic incident could have been prevented,” the statement read. “We feel that the restaurant owner and management failed to protect our safety.”
“We believe we were carnage in a turf war between individuals we did not even know.”
The lawyers said that there were rumours about threats in the community, and Sandra Zisckind said her firm found out about the alleged rivalry from several unnamed sources they spoke to who had reached out to the injured.
But in a brief emailed statement, Peel regional police said no threats had ever been reported to police, and they had no indication there was any sort of turf war involved.
Investigators said they’d welcome anyone with new information coming forward.
A spokesperson for Bombay Bhel deferred all questions about the suit to Peel police, who are not involved in the civil litigation.
Allegations contained in the statement of claim have not been proven in court.