A. Mortimer

The Crown brought a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the accused for the prosecuting Assistant Crown Attorney.

The accused sought to call the Crown attorney as a witness on an abuse of process application, alleging she had made herself a material witness by relying on her own emails and factual assertions in her responding factum.

The court granted the motion and quashed the subpoena, finding that the stringent test for subpoenaing opposing counsel was not met, as the documentary evidence itself was sufficient and the Crown attorney's testimony was neither necessary nor material.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and various provincial ministries as defendants, and to make related amendments alleging misfeasance, conspiracy, and Charter breaches arising from the mistaken transfer of her vehicle's ownership and detachment of her license plate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amended claim lacked the heightened particularity required for serious allegations like conspiracy and misfeasance, and improperly named individual ministries rather than the Crown.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to deliver a re-drafted Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim within 30 days.

The plaintiff towing company sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add claims for an interim and permanent mandatory order compelling the Ontario Provincial Police to adhere to a 'First On Scene' tow policy.

The Crown opposed the amendments, arguing that statutory provisions prohibit injunctive and mandatory relief against the Crown.

The Master confirmed jurisdiction to assess the legal tenability of proposed pleadings and held that mandatory orders are a form of injunctive relief prohibited against the Crown.

The Master denied the amendments seeking mandatory orders but permitted amendments pleading irreparable harm and intimidation, as they were tenable claims relevant to damages.