Fred Fischer

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct a misnomer, identifying 'John Doe 1' as Benjamin Elliott, and to amend his statement of claim in an action alleging police assault and racial profiling.

The court granted the misnomer correction, finding the 'litigating finger' clearly pointed at Elliott despite the plaintiff's delay.

The court also permitted most of the proposed amendments, finding they provided particulars of the existing claims for assault, battery, and racial profiling.

However, the court denied an amendment alleging the police board failed to properly train its officers, ruling it asserted a new cause of action after the limitation period had expired.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence an action against a college, its employees, the police, and the Attorney General.

The proposed action related to his expulsion from a paralegal program and subsequent arrest for uttering threats.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed pleading was defective, lacked an evidentiary basis, and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to re-litigate a final college decision.

The court noted the applicant's history of bringing meritless proceedings and his failure to pay over $73,000 in outstanding costs orders.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants, including the Peel Police, Toronto Police, OIPRD, and the City of Toronto, alleging negligent investigation, conspiracy, bad faith, and other torts arising from the handling of his stolen vehicle report and previous criminal convictions.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous and vexatious, as well as a motion for summary judgment.

The court struck the claims against the moving defendants, finding that the police and OIPRD owed no private duty of care to the plaintiff, the conspiracy allegations lacked material facts, and the claims regarding past convictions were impermissible collateral attacks.

Summary judgment was also granted dismissing claims of theft and Charter breaches during an arrest, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against two police officers and the Toronto Police Services Board, alleging harassment, racial profiling, breach of trust, and conspiracy after being questioned by police in a parking lot.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The court found that the torts of harassment and racial profiling were not properly pleaded or recognized, and that the claims for breach of trust and conspiracy lacked material facts.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The defendants brought motions to strike a statement of claim under the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.

A self-represented plaintiff attempted to commence and pursue an action on behalf of another individual without authorization, contrary to the Law Society Act and Rule 15.01(3).

The court found the claim against most defendants disclosed no viable cause of action, including claims relating to alleged damages arising from the prosecution and arrest of a third party and claims against duty counsel and police.

Claims against several defendants were struck without leave to amend, while claims against certain government entities were struck with leave to amend due to insufficiently pleaded negligence allegations.