Gina Scarcella

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.

An advocacy organization challenged the constitutionality of federal legislation repealing the long‑gun registry created under the Firearms Act.

The applicant argued that eliminating the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms violated s. 7 of the Charter by increasing risks to life and security of the person, and violated s. 15 by disproportionately endangering women, particularly in situations of intimate partner violence.

The court held that the alleged harm resulted from private violence rather than state action and that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to maintain a risk‑reduction regulatory scheme.

The evidentiary record failed to establish a causal link between repeal of the registry and increased violence or gender‑based harm.

The legislation was therefore constitutional and represented a policy choice within Parliament’s authority.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim and for particulars.

The plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, sued the defendants for misfeasance in public office and other torts related to the handling of new drug submissions.

The court struck the claim for unlawful discrimination, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success, and struck certain paragraphs for improperly pleading evidence.

However, the court refused to strike claims based on res judicata, finding the tort claims distinct from prior judicial review proceedings, and refused to strike claims related to the loss of the benefit of section 8 of the Patent Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The motion for particulars was dismissed.