E. Prpic

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, defamation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches by the police, claiming he was harassed and defamed, leading to his termination from employment.

The court found the pleading remained devoid of material facts, relied on speculation, and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The claim was struck in its entirety, with costs awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, and leave to amend requiring a further motion.

The defendant in a slip and fall personal injury action brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's pre-accident medical and employment records.

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries to her right ankle and left knee, while the defendant argued her pre-existing chronic back and ankle conditions were relevant to assessing her original position and future functioning.

The court ordered production of the records, but limited the scope to documents specifically relating to back, ankle, leg, and foot issues from 2001 or 2003 onwards, finding that her entire medical history was not relevant.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced two civil actions against police officers and their employer, seeking over $1 million in damages following his conviction for impaired driving.

He alleged the officers' conduct caused him to hire incompetent counsel, leading to his conviction.

The defendants moved to strike the claims.

The court granted the motions, finding the claims were a collateral attack on the plaintiff's criminal conviction, which had already been upheld on appeal.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process, striking them out without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant municipality to answer questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a trip and fall on a city sidewalk, and the plaintiffs sought to ask whether the city implemented new policies and procedures for street lighting inspections after the incident.

The court granted the motion, holding that questions regarding post-incident remedial measures are relevant at the discovery stage as they may provide evidence of reasonable care, reasonable standards, prior knowledge, or the feasibility of taking precautionary steps.

The moving party brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a costs order pending the disposition of its application for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The court found it appropriate to grant the temporary stay, noting the practical realities of appeals and that the responding party's refusal to accept the costs on trust conditions was unreasonable.

The motion was granted, with costs awarded to the moving party.