A. Davidson

The plaintiff, a former route supervisor for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for her alleged involvement in a group benefits fraud scheme involving a healthcare supplier.

The TTC counterclaimed for the amount of the fraudulent benefits paid.

The court found that the plaintiff knowingly participated in the fraud by submitting claims for unnecessary medical devices and splitting the reimbursement proceeds with the supplier.

The court held that the plaintiff's conduct constituted civil fraud and willful misconduct, justifying summary dismissal without notice or termination pay.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the TTC's counterclaim for $15,815 was allowed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Toronto Transit Commission for improperly refusing to approve him for free passage on Wheel-Trans.

The defendant brought a motion to strike, and the court subsequently issued a notice under Rule 2.1 to determine if the action was frivolous.

The court held that a claim against a statutory body exercising a statutory power of decision must be brought by way of an application for judicial review.

As the action could not succeed as pleaded, it was dismissed as frivolous.

In a negligence jury trial arising from an alleged fall on a public transit bus, the plaintiffs sought to rely on the doctrine of spoliation after video footage from the bus surveillance system was overwritten pursuant to the transit authority’s standard 15‑hour retention policy.

The court considered whether the defendant intentionally destroyed relevant evidence in circumstances giving rise to a rebuttable presumption that the evidence would be unfavourable.

The evidence showed the footage was automatically overwritten under established policy before any notice of litigation and without authority for supervisors to download the footage absent police authorization.

The court held there was no factual foundation for intentional destruction of evidence related to contemplated litigation.

The issue of spoliation and any adverse inference was therefore removed from the jury.

The plaintiffs brought a motion shortly before trial alleging spoliation of video evidence by the defendant relating to a bus incident in which the plaintiff claimed injury due to driver negligence.

They sought to strike the defendant’s statement of defence, alternatively an adverse inference regarding the missing video, and exclusion of testimony from certain witnesses.

The court reviewed the governing principles of spoliation and emphasized that determinations regarding whether spoliation occurred and the appropriate remedy are generally best addressed by the trial judge.

Given the proximity of the trial and the intertwined nature of any potential remedy with the trial process, the motion was referred to the trial judge for determination.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.