Carole G. Jenkins

The defendants requested an urgent case management conference because the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with a previously ordered timetable for Master's motions and sought broader relief than initially identified.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay, which was due to an internet issue.

To ensure all motions could be heard together, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates, granted the plaintiffs time to seek legal advice, and established a revised timetable for the pending Master's motions.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found the action lacked merit and constituted an abuse of process, as the plaintiff, previously declared a party under disability and subject to an order precluding him from bringing actions without leave, had disregarded court guidance and orders regarding his legal capacity and the involvement of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the claim was stayed.

The appellants, whose children were previously made Crown wards, commenced a civil action against various individuals and organizations involved in the child protection proceedings.

Two defendants requested the dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous and vexatious.

The motion judge dismissed the action against those two defendants, and subsequently amended her reasons to dismiss the action against all defendants without giving the appellants notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the two moving defendants, finding the action was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate the child protection proceedings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the other defendants, holding that the motion judge committed a procedural error by dismissing the action against them without providing notice and an opportunity to make submissions as required by Rule 2.1.01.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement against the plaintiff estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale totaling over $67,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for proportionality given the settlement amount of $105,000.

The court awarded costs to the defendants in the total amount of $45,000, payable by the estate.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The Crown applied to have Courtney Carter declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour.

Carter pleaded guilty to ten charges including aggravated assault with a meat cleaver, mischief to public property, possession of weapons, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple breaches of probation.

The court found that Carter met all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation, including a serious personal injury offence, a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour demonstrating failure to restrain his conduct, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and intractable violent conduct.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.

The plaintiffs sought costs for undertakings and refusals motions brought against several defendants in a medical malpractice action.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $6,800 in costs against five defendant physicians who failed to answer undertakings until after the motion was served.

However, the court awarded costs of $3,257.64 to another defendant physician who was successful on the single refusal argued and had answered undertakings promptly.

No costs were awarded against two other defendants who resolved their issues prior to the hearing.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as an abuse of process and res judicata, and sought an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to prevent the plaintiffs from starting further claims without leave.

The court dismissed the claims against all defendants except Dr. Sit and Dr. Brazel without leave to amend, finding they had been previously decided and were an abuse of process.

The court declined to make a s. 140 order, noting it lacked jurisdiction to do so on a motion.

The claims against Dr. Sit and Dr. Brazel, which related to separate allegations of battery and lack of informed consent, were struck with leave to amend.

The applicant, a self-represented lawyer, brought a motion within his application for judicial review regarding adoption disclosure.

He sought orders requiring the respondent Children's Aid Society to file a proper response to a Request to Admit, file a complete Record of Proceedings, permit him to file his own affidavit, and permit a 45-page factum.

The court dismissed the motion except for allowing the applicant to file his own affidavit, finding the respondent's 'not relevant' responses to the Request to Admit were proper and the Record of Proceedings was complete.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing claims in negligence and against an individual employee of a child protection agency.

The motion judge had relied on Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D. to conclude that the respondents' duty of care was owed to the children, not the parents, and therefore no duty of care existed toward the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasoning.

The court confirmed that both before and after apprehension of children, the respondents' duty of care was to the children, creating a conflict that precluded a duty to the parents.

The court also upheld the immunity provision under section 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act for the employee, finding no facts suggesting bad faith.

The appellant's claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering remained intact.

The respondent Children's Aid Society of Ottawa filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related child protection proceedings.

The applicant supported reactivation, while the respondent Children and Family Services for York Region opposed it.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application or carve out the moving party while the court proceedings, which deal with the same facts and raise the potential for inconsistent results, remain ongoing.

The appellants, Family and Children’s Services Niagara and Heidi Payne, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the respondents' claims.

The original motion argued no reasonable cause of action and no duty of care owed by FACS to the parents.

The court dismissed the leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which appropriately distinguished the facts from precedents where parents were under investigation or children were in care.

The court emphasized the high threshold for granting leave to appeal and the caution required in striking claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against two children's aid societies.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the respondents' actions in assessing the applicant's mental health and stability were necessary for child protection purposes and not based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a black man of African origin, alleged racial discrimination in employment after being excluded from a collaborative pilot project by the respondent organizations.

The respondents claimed the exclusion was due to the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the unworkability of the arrangement.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the factual disputes regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion required a full hearing to resolve.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent children's aid society.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her hip injury by refusing to change her visitation time to allow for closer parking, and that the respondent cancelled her visitations as a reprisal for filing the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own beliefs to support her claims, and dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following the successful dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against 78 defendants, six groups of defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the claims, the plaintiff's mental health, and principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court reduced several of the costs claimed to ensure comparability and fairness, ultimately awarding a total of $71,000 in costs across the successful defendants.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior settlement before the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the CFSRB's authority under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act is limited to procedural matters and does not extend to hearing or remedying Code violations.

Therefore, the prior settlement did not appropriately deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The respondent Children and Family Services for York Region requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent child protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the facts, legal issues, and remedies sought were different.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings dealt with the same facts and raised the potential for inconsistent results.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding.