Alexander Patrick Boissonneau-Lehner

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

The defendant, Rick Malatesta, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff Lisa Taylor's Statement of Claim and Reply, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him personally, particularly for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff conceded the wrongful dismissal claim against Malatesta but sought to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress and punitive damages against him, and requested leave to amend her pleadings to clarify these claims.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the intentional infliction of mental distress claim, finding that the proposed amended claim adequately pleaded the necessary elements for this tort against Malatesta personally, and that corporate employees can be held personally liable for tortious conduct even if acting in the course of their duties.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to clarify that the wrongful dismissal claim was against Chair Source only, and the intentional infliction of mental distress claim was against Mr. Malatesta only, with additional particulars.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, Lisa Taylor, due to the defendant's significant delay in bringing the motion and unreasonable conduct regarding settlement offers.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a judgment dismissing his claims for malicious prosecution, nervous shock, false imprisonment, negligence, and other collateral claims, and an extension of time to appeal that judgment.

He also sought leave to appeal a subsequent costs order of $75,000 and leave to file fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, no explanation for the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, which would prejudice the responding parties.

The court also found no error in principle in the trial judge's costs award, noting its reasonableness given the trial length, the moving party's conduct, and unfounded allegations.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence and Counterclaim, alleging they were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant, and/or an abuse of process, and sought removal of the plaintiff's affidavit of documents.

The court granted the motion in part, striking numerous paragraphs and entire claims (e.g., deceit, Family Law Act claims, Charter violations, and parts of nervous shock and libel claims) without leave to amend for lacking legal basis or being scandalous/frivolous.

Other claims (e.g., malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, conspiracy, and parts of negligence/libel/nervous shock) were allowed to stand or were struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff's affidavit of documents was ordered removed.