Domenic Polla

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement, awarding $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes to the respondent Toronto Police Services Board.

This decision followed an appeal from a Superior Court of Justice judgment.

The appellants, parents whose criminal child abuse charges were withdrawn, sued the Attorney General, police, and a Crown attorney for various torts including malicious prosecution and negligent investigation.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding claims time-barred, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecution, and Crown immunity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the parents' appeal, upholding the summary judgment.

The appellate court affirmed the proper application of summary judgment principles, the expiry of limitation periods for claims against police, the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the initial prosecution, and the personal immunity of the Crown prosecutor, with the Attorney General being the proper defendant for such claims.

A self-represented litigant subject to a vexatious litigant order sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

She brought a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking both leave to bring the motion and the stay itself, rather than following the prescribed written procedure under rule 38.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed by a Superior Court judge as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that leave to bring a motion for a stay of a vexatious litigant order must be obtained from the Superior Court in writing pursuant to rule 38.13, and that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant such leave.

The court rejected the argument that the right to appeal a vexatious litigant order without leave necessarily extends to seeking a stay of that order.

The defendants moved to quash the plaintiffs' appeal from a Master's decision, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction and that the appeal should be heard by the Divisional Court.

The plaintiffs contended that the Courts of Justice Act was inapplicable due to their Indigenous status and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court granted the defendants' motion, quashing the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, and awarded full indemnity costs to the successful defendants due to the unmeritorious nature of the appeal route chosen by the plaintiffs.

The court determined costs following a motion in which the defendants were completely successful.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs prior to an offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $9,356.10.

The plaintiff challenged the time billed by defence counsel and argued the work performed was neither reasonable nor proportional.

The court found the plaintiff’s motion ill‑conceived and concluded the successful party would reasonably expect significant costs.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 as a fair and reasonable amount payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought over $52 million in damages alleging that casino operators and a Crown gaming agency fixed casino games using computer technology, failed to disclose risks to players, and over-served alcohol.

The casino operators moved for summary judgment while the gaming regulator moved to strike the claim.

The court found the plaintiff produced no evidence supporting allegations that electronic games were predetermined or non-random and accepted uncontroverted evidence explaining the operation of random number generators and regulatory oversight.

Claims relating to failure to disclose and over-service of alcohol also lacked evidentiary support.

The regulator’s motion to strike was granted because statutory gaming regulators owe duties to the public at large rather than private duties of care to individual gamblers, and the pleadings disclosed no recognized cause of action.

The Crown brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim arising from alleged mistreatment during the plaintiff’s incarceration at provincial correctional facilities.

The court held that most claims were barred for failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement in s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which requires written notice at least 60 days before commencing an action.

The plaintiff provided notice only after issuing the claim, rendering the pleaded tort, Charter, and other allegations nullities.

Only a negligence claim relating to a slip-and-fall incident survived because written institutional records sufficiently identified that occurrence.

Claims for punitive, aggravated, exemplary, Charter, and treaty-based damages were struck, and improperly named institutional defendants lacking legal status were dismissed.