3 total
Appeal dismissed as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1 for failing to obtain leave.
The appellant attempted to appeal an interlocutory order without first obtaining leave from the Divisional Court.
A panel previously directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the appellant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
The appellant failed to respond to the notice.
The court dismissed the appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the respondent Police Services Board.
Registrar directed to issue Rule 2.1 Notice for appeal brought without required leave.
The self-represented applicant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal, having previously been denied an adjournment.
The Divisional Court panel noted that the order appealed from was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, which the applicant had not obtained.
The court directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the applicant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
The applicant was given twenty days to provide written submissions in response.
Plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance struck for failing to plead material facts.
The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Crown, the Attorney General, and the police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and other torts arising from his arrest and prosecution for offences related to underage prostitution.
The charges had been withdrawn following a resolution involving a peace bond and forfeiture order.
The plaintiff sought leave under s. 17 of the Crown Liability Proceedings Act to proceed with his claims of misfeasance and bad faith, while the defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b).
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave and granted the defendants' motions to strike, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient material facts to support his claims and that the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity and statutory protections.
The actions were dismissed without leave to amend.
