Angela James

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and continue the action under the simplified procedure (Rule 76).

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment would result in non-compensable prejudice due to the loss of their substantive right to a jury trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the striking of a jury notice alone, without specific evidence of non-compensable prejudice, is insufficient to deny an amendment.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, and the defendant's jury notice was struck.

This decision concerns a judicial interim release hearing for Christopher Manning, 19, who faces charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and obstruct police.

These alleged offences occurred while he was on release for two prior sets of charges, placing the burden on him to show cause for release under s. 515(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The defence proposed release with conditions, arguing that further detention was contrary to the interests of justice given the likelihood of a time-served sentence upon conviction and highlighting the accused's status as a member of a visible minority and potential mental health challenges under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court, while acknowledging the importance of considering systemic factors for vulnerable populations, found the proposed release plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offence, particularly due to a history of non-compliance and a lack of detailed information regarding the accused's background and effective community supports.

Consequently, the accused failed to meet the burden for release and was detained.

The defendants, Kingston General Hospital and Paladin Security Group Ltd., moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action alleging excessive force by security staff.

The plaintiff, an adult male with schizophrenia, sustained an elbow fracture while being restrained by security staff at the hospital.

The court reviewed contemporaneous security notes and discovery evidence, finding that the security staff acted in accordance with their training and that the force used was reasonable given the plaintiff's aggressive and non-compliant behaviour.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action against all defendants.