Barney Brucker

The plaintiff, a former Toronto police officer, sued the defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Charter breaches following his arrest and prosecution for corruption and other offences.

The criminal charges were ultimately stayed or withdrawn.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the absence of reasonable and probable grounds for the charges, which was fatal to the malicious prosecution and negligent investigation claims.

The court also found no evidence of malice, deliberate unlawful conduct intended to harm, or conduct calculated to cause mental suffering.

The claim for Charter damages was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former ambassador to Israel, commenced an action against the Attorney General of Canada by notice of action.

After the two-year limitation period expired, she attempted to add five individual government officials as defendants by naming them in her statement of claim.

The court held that adding parties requires a court order under Rule 5.04(2) and cannot be done simply by expanding the statement of claim.

The motion to add four of the defendants was dismissed as statute-barred.

The motion to add the fifth defendant, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, was allowed only in respect of a bad faith claim arising from post-termination conduct that occurred within the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff failed to plead a tenable claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the fifth defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada.

The action alleges that the Government of Canada breached inmates' Charter rights by subjecting them to prolonged administrative segregation in federal correctional institutions.

The court found that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the certification motion.

The plaintiffs in three separate actions against the Government of Canada brought motions to strike Canada's Statements of Defence for failure to provide an adequate List of Documents.

In support, they served summonses to examine three government officials.

Canada brought a preliminary motion to quash the summonses, arguing it was immune from having its List of Documents challenged and that the summonses were an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, finding that the Crown's List of Documents can be challenged similarly to an Affidavit of Documents, and that the summonses were not an abuse of process, though the court imposed terms to prevent overreaching.