Alim Jessa

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence an action using only his initials, alleging historical sexual abuse by a former teacher.

The plaintiff filed evidence from his treating psychotherapist indicating that using his real name would cause unnecessary harm and exacerbate his symptoms.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted the motion, finding that the salutary effects of the order outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The prospective plaintiff sought an ex parte order to commence a civil action using a pseudonym or initials, and for orders preventing disclosure of his real name and sealing motion materials, based on allegations of sexual abuse by a former teacher.

The Master dismissed the motion orally, finding it should not have been brought ex parte and that the procedure for publication bans under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction (CPPD) had not been followed.

The Master also found the evidence insufficient to displace the strong presumption of open courts, noting that the Dagenais/Mentuck test for publication bans requires a "real, substantial and well-grounded" risk, which was not met by the solicitor's affidavit alone.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-bring it on notice with proper procedure and evidence.

The plaintiff, Paramjit Singh, and the defendant, Shoppers Home Health Care (Ontario) Inc., each sought costs following a four-week jury trial.

The jury found Shoppers liable for Mr. Singh's injuries but also found Mr. Singh 75% contributorily negligent, resulting in a total award of approximately $73,000, which was less favorable than Shoppers' Rule 49.10 settlement offer of $100,000.

The court determined that Shoppers' global offer to multiple plaintiffs (Mr. Singh and his family with FLA claims) was valid and triggered Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

The court then assessed Mr. Singh's partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and Shoppers' partial indemnity costs from that date to the end of trial, considering factors under Rule 57.01.

Despite Mr. Singh's success on liability, his low recovery and high contributory negligence meant the Rule 49.10 offer was beaten.

The court ultimately concluded that the allowable costs for both parties were effectively equivalent ($131,633 for Mr. Singh and $128,500-$138,500 for Shoppers) and declined to order costs payable by either party.