Angela I. Salvatore

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing and without notice seeking an order to compel the court to release the audio and video recording of a prior motion hearing to an authorized court transcriptionist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of civil motions are not available.

The court also noted that the prior hearing involved a publication ban protecting minor defendants, and there was no justification to risk further disclosure by releasing the recording.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of the case management judge.

The plaintiffs alleged actual and perceived bias, which the court found to be unsubstantiated.

The defendants sought substantial or partial indemnity costs for their opposition to the recusal motion.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, finding their participation necessary and appropriate, and rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for no costs based on access to justice or financial hardship without evidentiary support.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as a reprimand for unsubstantiated bias allegations, emphasizing that costs awards should be reasonable and not punitive.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding a motion for disclosure of non-parties to whom the plaintiffs had disseminated unredacted litigation documents identifying minor defendants.

Despite the plaintiffs' failure to provide submissions and their stated intent to seek leave to appeal, the court proceeded to decide the outstanding issue.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached an interim publication ban and engaged in a strategy to release minor defendants' identities to the press.

To ameliorate the harm and ensure the efficacy of the publication ban, the court ordered the plaintiffs to disclose under oath the names and contact details of all recipients of the identifying documents.

The defendants and the non-party family of Student Q brought a motion to remove and/or redact certain affidavits and exhibits filed by the plaintiffs, citing breaches of a prior confidentiality order (the "Penny Order") protecting minor children's identities and confidential school records.

The court found that the plaintiffs' affidavits contained information identifying Student Q and other minor students, and that the confidential school records required enhanced protection.

The court granted the defendants' primary relief, striking the main affidavit and ordering its removal, imposing strict protocols for future filings, and directing the plaintiffs to retrieve and destroy copies of the affidavit disseminated to non-parties.

The court heard urgent motions to seal the file and ban publication of minor parties' identities in a bullying lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, Mother Doe and Jane Doe, initially sought broad protection but then released unredacted pleadings to the press, identifying the minor defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible, rejecting their late-filed affidavits and expunging other materials.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted a publication ban protecting minors' names, school attendance dates, and family details, but allowed publication of ages, grade levels, and general details of alleged bullying and harm, as these were deemed not to identify the minors to the general public.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiffs due to their abusive litigation tactics and breaches of court orders.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the recusal of the case management judge, Kimmel J., alleging actual and perceived bias.

The grounds for recusal included a perceived racist attack by opposing counsel against the plaintiff Mr. Rogerson, the judge's alleged annoyance with the plaintiffs and their counsel, making orders beyond jurisdiction, and adopting an investigative role.

The judge dismissed the motion, finding no compelling evidence of actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court emphasized that subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient and that the high burden on the moving party to demonstrate a real likelihood of bias was not met.

The judge also noted that displeasure with a ruling or judicial admonishment for non-compliance does not constitute grounds for recusal, and that litigants are not entitled to choose their judge.

The plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit alleging bullying and sought a sealing order and publication bans without notice.

The defendants, including Havergal College and a minor defendant, also brought motions for similar protective relief.

The court held an urgent case conference, rejecting the plaintiffs' broad motion without notice but granting interim orders on consent to seal the court file and impose a publication ban on minor parties' identities and allegations.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' use of pseudonyms nunc pro tunc and appointed a litigation guardian for a minor defendant, both on consent.

The substantive motions for sealing and publication bans were scheduled for a later hearing.

The defendants brought an urgent motion to remove, redact, and seal affidavits and exhibits filed by the plaintiffs to protect the confidentiality of minor students.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for the case management judge's recusal, which was dismissed.

The plaintiffs then sought an adjournment of the defendants' motion due to late filings.

The court granted the adjournment on the condition that the entire court file be sealed temporarily, balancing the urgency of protecting minors' privacy interests against the open court principle, particularly given the operational constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs sought to dismiss the defendants' proposed motion as not urgent, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' arguments and found that the defendants' motion was urgent and not frivolous on its face.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' request for dismissal, ruling that the motion met the requirements of the Notice to the Profession and was to be heard on its merits.