Adam Mortimer

The moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order dismissing her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal, acting on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02, dismissed the motion for panel review as an abuse of process.

The court noted the moving party's history of bringing meritless motions and attempting to re-litigate settled issues, concluding this was the clearest of cases warranting a Rule 2.1 dismissal.

The moving party was also prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave.

The defendant Crown moved to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court found that the allegations against Crown counsel, the Premier, the Attorney General, and the judiciary disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as they were protected by absolute privilege, lacked a private law duty of care, or were barred by statutory immunity.

The court also found that the remaining allegations were an abuse of process, as they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in multiple prior proceedings commenced by the plaintiff.

The statement of claim was struck out without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown.

The plaintiff brought a $17 million action against the Crown, alleging negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, breach of privacy, defamation, and Charter breaches arising from the OPP's response to her complaints about suspicious vehicles and trespassers.

The Crown moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the OPP investigated the complaints thoroughly and reasonably concluded no criminal activity occurred.

The court held that the police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime for negligent investigation, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting her other claims.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for leave to continue three existing actions and to rescind the vexatious litigant order.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceedings and that continuing them would be an abuse of process, noting a history of unpaid costs orders and failure to advance litigation.

The court also declined to rescind the vexatious litigant order, finding the applicant had not learned from past mistakes and continued to exhibit abusive litigation behaviour.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Crown brought a motion for default judgment seeking a declaration that the Aylmer Church's conveyance of real property to the Lethbridge Church was fraudulent and void.

The Aylmer Church had transferred the property for nominal consideration shortly after being ordered to pay substantial fines and costs for contempt of court related to COVID-19 public health orders.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including a non-arm's length transfer, suspicious timing, grossly inadequate consideration, and retained beneficial use.

The motion was granted, the conveyance was declared void, and the lands were made subject to execution by the Crown.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the provincial government, alleging it was liable for workplace harassment she suffered at a hospital in 1999, as well as for the subsequent failure of various tribunals to grant her relief.

The government moved to dismiss the action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the plaintiff moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The court dismissed the action, finding that hospitals are not Crown agents and the Crown is statutorily immune from liability for the acts of independent adjudicative tribunals.

The court also declined to extend the time for trial due to the plaintiff's significant delay and the resulting prejudice.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating their restaurant in defiance of COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

The respondents had openly defied the Stage 1 Regulation by offering indoor and patio dining despite being in a lockdown zone.

The court found a clear breach of the regulation and no exceptional circumstances to refuse the statutory injunction.

The restraining order was granted, and costs were fixed at $15,000.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating a restaurant in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents requested more time to retain counsel and opposed the urgency.

The court scheduled an ex parte hearing for later in the week, allowing the respondents the option to attend or to challenge any resulting order at a later date.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.