David A. Gourlay

The self-represented appellant attempted to appeal a single Divisional Court judge's direction made during a judicial review proceeding concerning a freedom of information disclosure dispute.

The court held that no appeal as of right lay to the Court of Appeal from that direction.

Depending on whether the order was made on a motion, the proper route was either a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act or, otherwise, a leave appeal under s. 6(1)(a).

Because the notice of appeal clearly failed to engage the court's jurisdiction, the proceeding was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process.

No costs were ordered.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against the Toronto Police Services Board and an individual officer, the defendants sought costs.

The defendants requested a significantly reduced amount of $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, down from their actual partial indemnity costs of over $207,000, to account for the self-represented plaintiff's financial circumstances.

The plaintiff did not provide costs submissions.

The court found the requested amount reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay $25,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, Reza Bahramzadeh, sued the Toronto Police Services Board and Officer Amanda Mason for negligence, wrongful arrest, and assault related to his 2008 arrest and a subsequent 2009 assault by a third party while on bail.

The plaintiff alleged excessive force during arrest, fabricated allegations, and police responsibility for the later assault and missing property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and inconsistent with objective records.

It ruled that the plaintiff's attempts to relitigate criminal convictions constituted an abuse of process and that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest.

The court also found no evidence linking the police to the 2009 assault or the missing property, and no negligence in his transport.

The plaintiff's claims for broad social reforms and unrelated relief were deemed inappropriate for the court.

The action was dismissed.

The Applicant sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law (By-law 1515-2019, section 1(A)) that limited the issuance of new payday loan establishment licenses to renewals only, arguing it was ultra vires the City of Toronto Act, 2006, discriminatory, and in conflict with federal and provincial legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law to be a valid exercise of the City's broad authority for consumer protection, not discriminatory in the municipal law sense, and not in conflict with higher legislation, as it did not prohibit all payday loan operations nor frustrate the purpose of the relevant Acts.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant, a municipal employee, for statements she made at a Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual general meeting regarding his eligibility to serve on the board.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the defendant had valid defences including statutory immunity and qualified privilege, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion regarding 166 undertakings and refusals from the defendants' discoveries.

The plaintiff claimed $228,395.58 on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the defendants' conduct, including delayed disclosure and excessive refusals.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not rise to the level of scandalous or reprehensible behavior.

Applying the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $100,000, payable jointly by the TTC Defendants.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The applicants brought a refusals motion to compel answers and document production from the City of Toronto and Ontario in a Charter application challenging shelter standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion sought to enforce an Interim Settlement Agreement regarding physical distancing and bed capacity in shelters.

The court granted the motion in part, finding many of the City's refusals improper regarding system-wide compliance data for the May 15-June 15, 2020 period, but upheld other refusals based on proportionality, particularly concerning the Central Intake service, daily capacity data, and information outside the specified period.

Following a successful civil Charter action against police defendants, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after obtaining modest damages and declaratory relief.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff recovered less than $100,000 and should have proceeded under the Simplified Procedure.

The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed under the ordinary procedure given the need for full discovery and cross-examination to establish credibility and Charter violations.

The court further found troubling litigation conduct by the defendants, including problematic testimony and evidentiary issues relating to video recordings.

Balancing the factors under Rule 57.01 and access to justice considerations, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The municipal defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 to strike portions of a self-represented plaintiff’s statement of claim.

The plaintiff alleged conspiracy, racial discrimination, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, negligence, and invasion of privacy arising from a municipal by‑law charge initiated after an alleged racially motivated incident involving a taxi driver.

The court held that the pleadings, read generously in light of the plaintiff’s self‑represented status, disclosed viable causes of action against the municipal officer and municipality relating to the 2009 by‑law enforcement.

However, claims relating to the issuance of an Ambassador taxi licence in the late 1990s were either limitation‑barred, improperly brought as civil claims instead of judicial review, or disclosed no viable Charter claim under ss. 7 or 15.

The motion was granted in part, striking the taxi‑licensing claims but permitting the enforcement‑related tort claims to proceed.

After dismissing a municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a procurement dispute, the court addressed the successful plaintiff’s claim for costs.

The plaintiff sought approximately $50,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued that $20,000–$25,000 would be reasonable.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Appeal’s guidance that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party, the court reduced several components of the claim.

Reductions were made for the junior counsel’s billing rate, duplication between counsel, and unnecessary expert evidence.

The court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a procurement dispute arising from a waste haulage contract tender.

The plaintiff carrier alleged its bid was wrongly rejected as non‑compliant despite literal compliance with the tender terms and sought damages for lost profits.

The court held the motion record was inadequate and contained unresolved evidentiary conflicts regarding the interpretation of tender documents, the purpose of amendments to the request for quotation, and the municipality’s handling of clarification opportunities.

The court found that the summary judgment process would not provide a fair and just determination of the dispute.

A full trial was required in the interests of justice.