3 total
Motion to compel witness examination on judicial review dismissed for lacking a reasonable evidentiary basis.
The applicant brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to compel the examination of a Vice-President at Infrastructure Ontario in the context of an application for judicial review challenging the expropriation of its properties.
The applicant sought to supplement the record with evidence regarding the scope, rationale, and scheme of the expropriations.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable evidentiary basis that the proposed witness participated in briefing the decision-maker, nor did the proposed topics fall within the limited exceptions for supplementing a record on judicial review.
Class action certification denied for alleged systemic sexual misconduct in the Cadet Program due to lack of commonality.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of female cadets who allegedly suffered sexual misconduct while enrolled in the Cadet Program.
The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of s. 7 of the Charter.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion.
While the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the other claims were struck.
The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide some basis in fact that there was an identifiable class of two or more persons, that the claims raised common issues, or that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the allegations would require highly individualized inquiries.
The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs for repeatedly re-litigating meritless, previously dismissed claims.
The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.
The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.
The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.
