Amy Leamen

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, abuse of public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter breaches arising from criminal fraud charges related to workers’ compensation benefits.

The court held that the action against the Crown was a nullity due to failure to comply with the notice requirement under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

However, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, abuse of public office, or intentional infliction of mental suffering were untenable, even though the criminal charges had been withdrawn following a negotiated repayment.

Applying the jurisprudence on favourable termination, the court held that whether the withdrawal constituted a favourable outcome required a fact‑specific analysis and could not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

The Charter damages claim was struck because such relief is only available against the state and the action against the Crown was barred.

The remaining claims were permitted to proceed.

The Litigation Administrator in a class action sought court approval for its accounts totaling $65,455.25.

The defendants objected, arguing the fees significantly exceeded the initial estimate of $21,500.00.

The court applied the principles for passing a receiver's accounts and found the work was necessary, well done, and the hourly rates were known in advance.

The court approved the accounts up to the end of December 2011, noting that changes in the notice process increased the complexity and expense of the administrator's work.