Carole Jenkins

The court addressed scheduling for a package of motions, including the defendant's motion to strike and the plaintiff's motions to add parties and seek leave to plead malicious prosecution.

The court determined that the two hours booked were insufficient and that the motions needed to be sequenced, with pleadings finalized before the motion to strike could be heard.

The plaintiff's motion to lift a publication ban from related criminal proceedings was directed to the criminal court judge who issued it.

The remaining motions were adjourned and scheduled for future dates.

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.

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 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 defendant Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion to strike the plaintiff mother's claim against it for negligent investigation.

The mother alleged the investigation was negligent due to a failure to provide French language translation services.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Syl Apps, holding that a Children's Aid Society owes its duty to the children and owes no duty of care to the parents during an investigation.

The mother's personal claim against the Society was struck without leave to amend, though the children's claims remain.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim brought by a parent and a minor child against a child protection agency, its employees, and a school vice-principal.

The parent alleged negligence relating to the apprehension of the child, the child’s placement in foster care, and school disciplinary decisions.

The court held that child protection agencies and their staff owe a duty of care to the child, not to the parent, relying primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., and found that the parent’s pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also found statutory immunity under the Child and Family Services Act was not displaced due to the absence of pleaded particulars of bad faith.

The parent’s claim was struck without leave to amend, while the minor’s claim was stayed pending appointment of a litigation guardian represented by counsel.