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.