C. Jenkins

The defendants brought motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim relating to negligence, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an employee of a children's aid society and a grandmother to children involved in a protection investigation, alleged the defendants caused her harm through their handling of the case.

The court struck the negligence claim without leave to amend, finding no duty of care is owed by a children's aid society to a family member.

The defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering claims were struck with leave to amend due to insufficient pleading of material facts.

The court declined to anonymize the pleadings or dismiss the action against one defendant based on statutory immunity at this preliminary stage.

At a case conference, the court established a timetable for a motion to determine the capacity of the self-represented plaintiff.

The defendants intend to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the plaintiff before any further steps are taken in the actions.

The defendant, Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, requested that the action be summarily dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully apprehended a child and failed to return him.

The case management judge found that the claim was not clearly frivolous or vexatious on its face and declined to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1, without prejudice to the defendants bringing motions under other rules.

A further case conference was ordered to address the plaintiffs' litigation capacity.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's conviction for robbery.

Both parties agreed the offender should be designated a dangerous offender and receive a fixed-term sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, but disputed the length of the fixed term.

The court designated the offender a dangerous offender, finding he posed a future threat due to a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

The court imposed a further fixed-term sentence of three years, after crediting four years for pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.