Adrian Johnston

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's defamation claim arising from statements allegedly made at a conference in Montreal, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

They also moved to strike the remaining defamation allegations for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the Montreal defamation claim under s. 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the claim arose in Quebec.

The court also struck the remaining defamation claims without leave to amend, as the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts to establish a prima facie case of defamation.

The defendant in a $195 million procurement dispute served summonses on three non-party witnesses for examination prior to a summary judgment motion.

The non-parties and plaintiffs moved to quash the summonses, arguing they were an abuse of process due to short notice, failure to provide relevant pleadings, and overly broad document requests.

The court agreed, finding the defendant's conduct in serving the summonses and refusing a brief postponement constituted an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed, and the defendant's motion to compel answers to refusals was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against 28 physicians, a hospital, and the provincial and federal governments, alleging negligence and misrepresentation leading to a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the provincial and federal governments without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to provide statutory notice to Ontario and failed to plead material facts establishing a duty of care by the governments.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the claim against the physicians and hospital, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend to properly plead material facts supporting his claims in negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In an action concerning a procurement process for Visa Application Centre services, the parties sought to settle the terms of a confidentiality order governing the disclosure of Third Party Information.

The sole issue was the wording of a paragraph dictating the scope of submissions that affected Third Parties could make on a future motion to determine confidentiality.

The plaintiffs argued for a narrower scope, while the defendant and Third Parties argued for a broader scope.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed wording, finding it addressed issues clearly relevant to the Third Parties without tying the hands of the judge hearing the future motion, but noted this did not necessarily preclude Third Parties from raising other issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for particulars and an extension of time to deliver a reply, achieving mixed success.

The court ordered the defendant to provide one critical particular regarding the value of a contract, while dismissing the other requests.

The parties could not agree on costs.

Given the mixed success and the early stage of the case-managed action, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking particulars of allegations in the defendant's statement of defence and an extension of time to deliver a reply.

The defendant argued that pleadings were closed and that an affidavit was required to support the demand for particulars.

The court found that a demand for particulars could be made regardless of the status of pleadings and that an affidavit was not required if the allegations were "general and bald." The court ordered the defendant to provide particulars regarding the value of the contract (paragraph 9 of the statement of defence) as it was deemed a material fact and a "general and bald" denial.

However, the court denied the demand for particulars for the remaining ten allegations, finding them sufficiently detailed or within the plaintiffs' knowledge, and that an affidavit was necessary for those.

The plaintiffs were granted an extension to deliver their reply.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action named numerous defendants including government entities, corporations, and political parties, alleging perceived personal wrongs.

The motion judge found the statement of claim contained nonsensical allegations that disclosed no cause of action against any defendant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding both the underlying action and the notice of appeal to be frivolous and vexatious, as the appeal grounds merely reiterated the same problematic allegations from the statement of claim without demonstrating any merit.

The self-represented applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that various tax and municipal statutes violated her Charter rights, claiming $4 million in damages and tax refunds, and absolute title to her property free of taxes and laws.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting it relied on cherry-picked legal principles and ignored Section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.