2 total
Appeal of Rule 2.1.01 dismissal of COVID-19 border measures lawsuit dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The action arose from COVID-19 border requirements, including PCR testing and the ArriveCan application, and sought $366,000,000 in damages for alleged Charter and international law violations.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the pleading was incoherent and failed to disclose a viable cause of action.
The court also rejected the appellant's arguments that constitutional claims are immune from Rule 2.1.01, that leave to amend was required, and that section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 is unconstitutional.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
Constitutional challenge to PIPEDA disclosure and veto provisions was dismissed.
The applicants brought a constitutional application challenging PIPEDA provisions permitting voluntary disclosure of subscriber information to government institutions without prior judicial authorization and related veto provisions limiting disclosure to affected individuals.
They alleged infringements of Charter ss. 8, 7, and 2(b), arguing the scheme lacked oversight, accountability, and transparency.
The court held it was bound by appellate authority that PIPEDA does not itself confer search or seizure powers, so s. 8 was not engaged on this record, and further held the s. 7 claim was a repackaging of the s. 8 arguments.
The court also found no s. 2(b) breach because the veto provisions are discretionary, incorporate balancing, and did not substantially impede meaningful public discussion.
