Fatema Dada

The plaintiff, Darren Noddle, a self-represented litigant in a civil negligence action against his former doctor and the provincial government, brought a motion seeking an order for publicly-funded counsel.

He alleged that a prescribed drug, Aldara, caused him significant harm, including cognitive impairment and vision problems, which affected his ability to represent himself.

The Attorney General opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff's Charter rights were not engaged in a civil action and that he failed to meet the established legal tests for publicly-funded counsel or an advance costs award.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that civil actions for personal injury do not engage section 7 Charter rights, and the plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for an advance costs award, particularly regarding the absence of other realistic funding options and a prima facie meritorious case of public importance.

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim arising from employment-related disputes with hospitals and subsequent complaints before several administrative tribunals.

The court held that the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board were not suable entities because their enabling statutes did not confer corporate status or capacity to be sued.

The claim against those bodies was therefore dismissed.

The court further held that the pleadings against the Crown disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained vague and unsupported allegations of corruption and Charter breaches, and failed to plead material facts necessary to support a recognized cause of action.

The claim against the Crown was struck with leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from criminal charges related to a 1992 arson.

The court found the 63-page statement of claim to be prolix, repetitive, argumentative, and replete with evidence, violating the rules of pleading.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs 60 days leave to amend, providing detailed guidance on how to properly plead the causes of action.

The court declined to strike the negligent investigation claims without leave to amend, noting the law in this area is unsettled.