Calina Ritchie

The appellant, an inmate, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his action against the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original action alleged deliberate power cuts to his cell and sought damages and an order for an extension cord.

The Superior Court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting jurisdictional issues and a lack of cause of action, and ruled against the admissibility of the appellant's affidavit evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no clear error or misdirection by the motion judge, and affirmed that Rule 2.1.01 is intended for summary dismissal of such claims, precluding the need for affidavit evidence.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claims, the successful defendants (the Attorney General of Canada and an individual) sought partial indemnity costs of $16,084.

The plaintiff objected to the hourly rates proposed for Crown counsel, arguing they exceeded internal department rates and violated the indemnity principle.

The court rejected this argument, applying the principle that costs for salaried government lawyers should be fixed as though they were independent outside counsel.

The court found the proposed rates reasonable and awarded the requested costs.

The self-represented plaintiff, a prisoner in Quebec, commenced an action in Ontario against the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada, alleging malicious power interruptions to his cell.

The court reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the claim asserted no recognized cause of action and lacked any real connection to Ontario, the court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to circumvent vexatious litigant declarations in other jurisdictions.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant brought an application against his sister regarding the management of their incapable mother's finances under a continuing power of attorney.

The respondent had sold the mother's house and placed the proceeds in a trust account, refusing the applicant access due to allegations of prior financial mismanagement.

The court directed that the siblings must act jointly as attorneys pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered the parties to pass their accounts, open a joint investment account for the sale proceeds, maintain a joint chequing account for the mother's immediate needs, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the mother.

Both parties were awarded partial costs payable from the sale proceeds.