Eugene G. Mazzuca

A police services board and a detective appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for false arrest, negligent investigation, and malicious prosecution, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on lack of reasonable and probable grounds and malice, and the cross-appeal, affirming the costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The court applied the four Reid factors: explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the plaintiff failed to satisfy the first three factors, the court found no actual prejudice to the police defendants.

Emphasizing that prejudice is the key factor and that a party should not be unduly prejudiced by their lawyer's conduct, the motion was granted.

The dismissal order was set aside, and a strict timetable was imposed for the action's progression.

The defendants moved to dismiss a civil action alleging assault and false arrest by a police officer on the basis of delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for breach of a prior court order.

The action had been commenced more than fourteen years earlier and had seen virtually no progress for almost a decade following examinations for discovery, with numerous undertakings remaining unanswered and the plaintiff failing to comply with an order requiring her to appoint counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person.

The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the lengthy passage of time.

Although the delay was not found to be intentional and contumelious, the circumstances created a substantial risk that a fair trial would no longer be possible.

The action was dismissed for delay, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant filed a police misconduct complaint under the Police Services Act and commenced a parallel civil action for damages arising from the same arrest.

After the disciplinary hearing officer found the officers not guilty, the respondents successfully moved to strike the civil claims on the basis of issue estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 4-3 decision, allowed the appeal, holding that while no public policy rule should categorically exclude police disciplinary hearings from issue estoppel, the Court of Appeal erred in its discretionary analysis by failing to consider the significant differences in purpose, scope, and stakes between the two proceedings, the parties' reasonable expectations, and the unfairness of permitting the Chief of Police's designate's decision to exonerate the Chief from civil liability.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the police and his former wife's lawyer for negligent investigation and conspiracy to bring false criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to draw an adverse inference for the failure to call the former wife as a witness.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the appellant due to his persistence in making serious, unfounded allegations against a lawyer.

The Ontario-resident plaintiffs purchased Mexican vacation packages from the defendant Sunwing in Ontario.

The plaintiffs suffered serious injuries in a bus accident in Mexico caused by the negligence of the driver.

The bus was operated by Best Day, a Mexican company contracted by Sunwing.

Best Day entered into indemnity agreements with Sunwing agreeing to Ontario jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sued Sunwing and Best Day in Ontario.

Best Day moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Best Day's appeal, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

The appellant filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against two police officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force.

The hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no excessive force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers for unlawful arrest, excessive force, arbitrary detention, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims based on issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the elements of issue estoppel were met and there was no reason to exercise discretion to refuse its application.

The appellant was arrested for causing a disturbance and subsequently filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against the arresting officers.

A hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no unnecessary force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers and the Police Services Board for unlawful arrest, unnecessary use of force, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims on the ground of issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirements for issue estoppel were met and that applying it would not be unfair or unjust.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of claim without leave to amend.

The claim alleged conspiracy to injure and abuse of process by the police and government defendants in relation to an investigation targeting the adult entertainment industry.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge took an overly technical approach and that the material facts pleaded were reasonably capable of supporting the causes of action.

The appellant, who had been detained in a mental health facility for 23 years, appealed an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The order was made by a judge on his own motion at a Call-Over Court immediately after removing the appellant's solicitor of record.

The appellant was not present and had no actual notice of the intention to make such an appointment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that there was no basis in law for the appointment and no evidence before the presiding judge concerning the factors required under the Rules.