Evan Farrugia

The self-represented plaintiffs' lengthy statement of claim, alleging various torts including civil conspiracy, was struck by the court.

The defendants had sought particulars and inspection, to which the plaintiffs did not respond.

The court found the claim replete with evidence and scandalous/vexatious allegations, lacking necessary particulars for conspiracy.

The claim was struck with leave to amend within 60 days, conditional on the plaintiffs paying the defendants' partial indemnity costs of $3,426.96.

The plaintiff, a self-represented lawyer, initiated an action against multiple defendants concerning a failed real estate transaction and a prior judgment that ordered the return of a deposit.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it constituted an abuse of process, was frivolous and vexatious, and was barred by res judicata and collateral attack.

The court found the pleading to be a significant violation of pleading rules and confirmed that the issues raised had been previously decided.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to strike the statement of claim was granted without leave to amend.

The appellant's action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against real estate agents was dismissed on summary judgment due to being commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued she did not discover the material facts until later.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the discoverability period begins when the plaintiff knows or ought to have known the material facts, not the legal conclusion.

The court noted the appellant had previously pleaded the agents were her agents in a prior action, indicating knowledge of the material facts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, arguing it was brought beyond the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended the claim was discoverable later due to alleged fraudulent concealment of the defendants' agency status.

The court found the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts earlier, as evidenced by her pleadings in a prior related action.

The court dismissed the action as limitation barred, emphasizing that knowledge of material facts, not legal conclusions, triggers the limitation period.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old medical assistant with 35 years of service, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal after being placed on an indefinite layoff following the death of the doctor she primarily worked for.

The employer argued she was only temporarily laid off and failed to mitigate by refusing single shifts.

The court found the unilateral layoff constituted constructive dismissal, as the employer had no contractual right to lay her off.

The court awarded a 22-month notice period and found no failure to mitigate, as the single shifts offered were substantially different from her prior regular schedule.