Damian Hornich

The moving party, a self-represented litigant previously declared a vexatious litigant in three separate orders, sought leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals after they were dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the moving party failed to perfect the appeals despite being capable of filing voluminous materials.

The court further held that the underlying appeals were entirely devoid of merit and that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the matter to proceed.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary notice of appeal and for case management directions.

The moving party had improperly combined appeals of three vexatious litigant declarations and a dismissed application into a single notice of appeal without obtaining the required leave for the application appeal.

The Court of Appeal struck the application appeal without prejudice for failing to obtain leave under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

However, recognizing the moving party's clear intention to appeal the vexatious litigant declarations, the Court granted an extension of time to file separate notices of appeal for those orders.

The request for case management was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the respondents sought costs.

The appellant did not file responding submissions.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the fully successful respondents, fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a police officer and the police services board for disclosing his criminal record to his employer, which allegedly caused his termination.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the defendants acknowledged the disclosure was wrongful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two-year limitation period began when the plaintiff learned of the disclosure and his resulting loss, regardless of whether he knew the defendants were legally liable.

The court considered whether a self-represented plaintiff's motion and underlying action should be summarily screened under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held the pleadings and submissions were repetitive, unintelligible, and duplicated issues raised in an earlier action that had already been stayed.

Finding the proceeding frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed the proposed motion, prohibited further motions in the action without leave, and directed the registrar not to accept further filings.

Costs were left to be addressed by written submissions if sought.

During the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, the appellant and his friends were walking down a public street intending to demonstrate in support of animal rights.

They were stopped by police officers who demanded to search their bags as a condition of proceeding further.

The appellant refused and was grabbed and pushed by an officer.

The Court of Appeal held that the police conduct was not authorized by the common law ancillary powers doctrine, as it was not reasonably necessary to preserve the peace.

The court found that the police violated the appellant's common law right to travel unimpeded and his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court also held that the officer committed the tort of battery, as he lacked lawful authority and the contact was unnecessary.

The self-represented moving party brought a second motion within six months seeking to lift a stay of proceedings previously imposed pending completion of a related small claims action and payment of outstanding costs.

The court held that the prior costs orders, including those from the small claims action and earlier motions, were a threshold condition to any further consideration of lifting the stay.

The motion was characterized as an impermissible serial attempt to re-litigate issues already decided rather than a timely appeal or proper motion to set aside the earlier orders.

The motion was dismissed, the moving party's request for his own costs was rejected, and aggregate costs of $2,300 were awarded to the responding parties.

The applicant sought declarations that police actions during the 2010 G20 summit violated his Charter rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly, and alleged battery by an officer after he refused to permit a search of his backpack near the G20 security perimeter.

Police prevented him from proceeding southbound toward the summit site unless he permitted a search.

The court held that the police conduct was authorized under common law ancillary police powers and the Police Services Act duty to preserve the peace, given the heightened security context following violent riots the previous day.

Applying the Waterfield test and Supreme Court jurisprudence on investigative detention and security measures, the court found the interference with liberty minimal and justified.

The application was dismissed and the battery claim rejected as de minimis and protected under statutory authority.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.