Barney Wakefield 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The criminal charges were ultimately stayed or withdrawn.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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his motorcycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer terminated his weekly disability benefits, prompting the Applicant to apply for arbitration.

The Applicant claimed he was employed "under the table" at the time of the accident and thus qualified for income benefits under section 12 of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence regarding his employment lacked credibility and concluded he was not employed at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator determined the Applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits under section 13, as he was able to perform the bulk of his pre-accident activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed, and the Applicant was denied his arbitration expenses due to the lack of merit in his case.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a Master's decision allowing claims for damages by Vivian Bercovici against Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to proceed.

The claims arose from Bercovici's dismissal as Canada's Ambassador to Israel and included intentional infliction of mental suffering and bad faith post-termination conduct.

The Master had dismissed the mental suffering claim but allowed the bad faith claim to proceed against Telford personally.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that under Ontario law, only employers can be liable for bad faith conduct committed by their employees within the scope of employment regarding employment contracts.

Consequently, the personal claim against Katie Telford for bad faith post-termination conduct was dismissed.

Leave was granted to Bercovici to amend her Statement of Claim to plead conduct beyond the scope of employment.

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 brought a refusals motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examinations for discovery of the Attorney General of Canada's representatives.

The questions pertained to information gathered during inquiries into the torture of Canadian citizens by foreign governments, the adoption of non-party inquiry testimony, production of in camera inquiry transcripts, and underlying evidence for allegations made against the Plaintiffs.

The court analyzed each refusal discretely, rejecting a global proportionality argument, and ordered some questions to be answered while upholding refusals for others, particularly those asking the AGC to adopt non-party testimony.

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.

Costs decision arising from a Rule 21 motion in a proposed class proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs after largely resisting the defendants’ motion to strike, while the defendants sought costs because the plaintiffs abandoned several claims during the motion, including conspiracy and negligence claims involving the Attorney General of Canada.

The court found that the plaintiffs substantially succeeded on remaining claims but materially altered their pleadings and abandoned significant allegations during the hearing.

Given the divided success and the altered nature of the action, the court concluded that neither side should receive costs.

In a civil action alleging Canadian government complicity in torture by foreign authorities, the plaintiffs sought the imposition of a discovery plan mirroring one ordered in related proceedings.

The court accepted that the actions should proceed in parallel with the related litigation at the production and discovery stage.

However, the court declined to impose a “show cause” sanction requiring the Attorney General to justify why its statement of defence should not be struck if document production deadlines were missed.

The judge held that the volume of documents subject to national security privilege screening in the present action was substantially greater and that the Attorney General had demonstrated diligence and good faith in complying with disclosure obligations.

The discovery plan from the related actions was adopted with this modification.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking declarations and partial summary judgment based on res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process in a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office, the court determined costs.

The moving party had sought numerous orders asserting that findings from a prior Federal Court decision conclusively established elements of liability against federal officials involved in an environmental review of a highway project.

The court held the motion was overly complex, repeatedly amended, and entirely unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from appellate authorities, the court concluded that the defendants’ claimed costs were modest given the scale and duration of the proceedings.

Costs of $309,844.95 were awarded to the defendants.

The appellant lawyers represented the plaintiffs in a successful class proceeding that declared certain provisions of the Canada Pension Plan invalid, entitling class members to survivor benefits.

The lawyers sought to enforce a first charge on the monetary award for their fees under s. 32(3) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the award constituted a 'benefit' under the CPP, which prohibits assigning or charging benefits under s. 65(1).

The Court found that the CPP prevailed over the CPA, rendering the lawyers' charge void.

The appellant received a retroactive lump sum payment for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and brought a proposed class action claiming interest on the payment.

The Attorney General moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment but allowed the claims based on constructive trust and the inherent power of the court to award interest to proceed.

On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious that none of the claims could succeed, as the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Canada Pension Plan does not provide for the payment of interest on benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, sustaining severe lacerations to his left hand that severed tendons and nerves.

The insurer terminated his weekly income benefits after 156 weeks, arguing he was reasonably suited for alternative occupations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's education, training, and experience did not equip him for the sedentary or service occupations proposed by the insurer's vocational expert.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant remained continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly income benefits, interest, and arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant applied for arbitration to dispute the termination, claiming ongoing disability due to a fractured leg and subsequent knee complications.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's delayed recovery and left knee problems were related to the accident.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment until May 23, 1995, and ordered the insurer to pay weekly income benefits for that period, plus interest and expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1990 and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them in 1994, applying the post-156 week eligibility test.

The applicant sought continued benefits, claiming total disability, and also claimed benefits for a second motorcycle accident in 1994.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was capable of performing sedentary or light work and therefore did not meet the test of being continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

The claim for the second accident was dismissed for lack of medical evidence.

The applicant was also ordered to repay an overpayment of $13,136.93 resulting from un-deducted Canada Pension Plan payments.

The applicant was severely injured in a motorcycle accident, resulting in the loss of several teeth.

He sought coverage for dental implants, but the insurer refused, offering only to pay for a removable denture.

The insurer maintained its refusal until the eve of the arbitration hearing, despite receiving multiple reports from the applicant's treating dentists and its own retained experts indicating that implants were reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the insurer unreasonably withheld the dental benefits and violated the 'pay pending dispute' provision of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the $25,000 cost of the implants, awarded a $10,000 special award for the unreasonable delay, and ordered the payment of interest on the future expenses from the mid-point of the anticipated treatment period.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for over 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the stricter post-156 week test of being continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation for which he is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant had chronic injuries preventing heavy physical work, he was capable of performing lighter or sedentary work consistent with his education and experience.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant's failure to pursue such work was due to a lifestyle choice rather than physical restrictions.

The application for ongoing benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including care benefits for his wife who took time off work to care for him, and weekly income benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant required full-time care only during his two-month recuperation from spinal surgery, awarding care benefits for that period but denying them thereafter, as his ongoing vertigo and orthopaedic injuries did not necessitate 24-hour supervision.

On the issue of income benefits, the arbitrator held that the applicant's prior workers' compensation and no-fault benefits did not constitute 'income from employment', meaning his weekly benefits had to be calculated based on the statutory deemed minimum earnings.

The arbitrator remained seized of the insurer's claim for repayment of an alleged overpayment pending a pending Divisional Court ruling.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought no-fault benefits to retrain as a commercial airline pilot, arguing he could no longer work as a truck driver due to knee injuries.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had successfully returned to work as a truck driver for a trial period and failed to provide medical evidence showing he could not continue in that occupation.

The arbitrator concluded that retraining as a pilot was not a reasonable expense resulting from the accident and dismissed the claim for occupational training benefits.