Charles Genest

The court dismissed a motion by the defendants, a real estate agent and her brokerage, to strike the plaintiff’s negligence claim.

The defendants argued the claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB), was statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court found the LTB did not have jurisdiction over claims of real estate agent negligence, the limitation period had not clearly expired, and the statement of claim disclosed all elements of negligence.

The action was allowed to proceed.

A police officer and her children sued the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) and several officers, as well as a lawyer designated to prosecute her, for civil conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, negligence, defamation, and abuse of non-criminal proceedings.

The DRPS defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration due to a collective agreement.

The lawyer defendant (Johnstone) moved to strike the claim against him for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, among other grounds.

The court dismissed the DRPS defendants' motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute, involving alleged police misconduct targeting the plaintiff and her family in their private capacities, transcended the collective agreement.

However, the court granted Johnstone's motion to strike, finding the pleadings against him did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and refused leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action.

The plaintiff failed to serve a responding affidavit until after cross-examining the defendants' affiants, contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure, and failed to serve a Reply that materially changed the alleged facts.

The defendants subsequently abandoned their motion and sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff's litigation tactics unjustified and awarded the defendants $15,000 in costs in any event of the cause.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

At the hearing, the plaintiff sought leave under Rule 39.02 to introduce a late-filed affidavit, after having cross-examined the defendants' witnesses.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and criticized the litigation tactic of tailoring evidence.

However, applying a flexible approach, the court granted leave to file the affidavit, finding that any prejudice to the defendants could be compensated by costs or an adjournment, and that the plaintiff should not be deprived of a trial due to counsel's oversight.

The court remained seized of the matter for the defendants to decide whether to proceed with their summary judgment motion and cross-examine the plaintiff.