Andra M. Pollak

On a Rule 21 and Rule 25 motion, the moving defendants sought to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution, negligence, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The court held it was plain and obvious the malicious prosecution and false arrest allegations could not succeed because the claimant's conviction had been upheld on appeal.

The court further held the negligence allegations tied to correctional policy decisions and claims against the public guardian failed to disclose a private law duty of care, and many allegations constituted impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process.

The statement of claim was struck as against the moving defendants and the action against them was dismissed, with costs awarded to those defendants.

Following dismissal of the defendants' summary judgment motion, the court determined the plaintiff's entitlement to costs.

The court applied rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and assessed objections to the plaintiff's bill of costs, including pre-motion entries, client communications, clerical work, and factum preparation time.

The court rejected a substantial indemnity award but found the claimed partial indemnity fees and disbursements were within the range the unsuccessful moving parties should reasonably have expected.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $36,330 plus disbursements of $2,567.21, inclusive of applicable taxes.