Christopher M. Moore

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a long-standing solicitor’s negligence action commenced in 1995.

The parties had previously agreed to binding arbitration to determine whether the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying 1985 action and the quantum of damages.

The arbitrator concluded the plaintiff had no reasonable probability of success and suffered no compensable damages, and the plaintiff’s subsequent appeal of the arbitration award was dismissed for delay.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata and the summary judgment framework, the court held that the arbitration award and dismissal of the appeal were final and binding and that no genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The action was dismissed and substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

Following a jury trial dismissing claims for assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent police investigation arising from an altercation at a shopping centre, the successful defendants sought costs.

The action had involved a 14‑day trial and earlier motions with costs reserved to the trial judge.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the significant damages claimed, and the time required to defend the action.

Although the police defendants argued for a higher scale of costs due to allegations of bad faith and fraud, the court treated all claims as falling within the partial indemnity scale.

Costs were awarded to both groups of defendants in the amounts requested.

The court considered a motion to dismiss an appeal arising from an arbitrator’s decision in a legal malpractice action.

The appellant, a self‑represented litigant, had repeatedly failed over several years to comply with procedural requirements and court‑ordered timelines, including a peremptory order requiring the filing of an appeal record.

Despite multiple adjournments and clear directions from the court, the appellant did not file a compliant appeal record and instead served an incomplete affidavit referencing missing exhibits.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that continued delay and non‑compliance justified dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the interlocutory order and prolonged delay.

The appellants appealed a decision striking their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of care against a teacher and school boards.

The motions judge had struck the claims on the basis that the psychological damages pleaded were not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that a teacher's alleged breach of duties towards a 13-year-old student could not cause reasonably foreseeable psychological damage.

The parents' direct claim against the school board was also permitted to proceed.