D. Lex Arbesman

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged he was misled during negotiations to exercise an option to purchase an interest in a dental practice.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, including duty of care, detrimental reliance, and damages.

The court granted the motion to strike the negligent misrepresentation claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to cure the deficiencies.

The applicant alleged that the respondents interfered with his ability to obtain medical treatment for leg ulcers by instructing a home care nurse not to enter his unit due to a bed bug infestation.

The Tribunal required the applicant to provide a statement from the nurse.

The nurse's statement indicated that she conferred with her superiors and followed their directions not to enter, rather than being instructed by the respondents' staff.

The Tribunal found that the statement did not support the applicant's allegation and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim against the County of Simcoe and its employee, as well as the substantial indemnity costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the respondents' qualified privilege in gathering information for an Ontario Works file.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the defendants.

The motion judge found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine triable issue regarding whether he suffered a 'visible illness' as a result of the defendants' conduct.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the lack of medical evidence, and dismissed the appeal, including the appeal of the costs order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a recusal motion.

The appellant argued that the case management judge should have recused herself due to improper and inaccurate correspondence sent by the respondents' solicitor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a reasonable, informed member of the public would not have concerns about the judge's impartiality based on the correspondence.