Grant Brailsford

The applicants sought judicial review of the City's decision to reject an advertisement for transit vehicles.

The City conceded that it failed to provide adequate reasons balancing the applicants' right to freedom of expression against its statutory objectives, as required by the Doré/Loyola framework.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the City for proper consideration and to provide adequate reasons.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of their action, the successful defendant municipality sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs opposed the costs claimed on the basis that the time spent by the defendant's in-house counsel was estimated rather than docketed.

The court found the defendant's estimates were supported by the evidentiary record and were fair and reasonable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount of $22,908.11.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order that dismissed their action for delay.

The action, initiated in 2012, sought $5,000,000 in damages against the City of Hamilton related to land development and an alleged 2005 agreement.

The court applied the four Reid factors to determine if the dismissal order should be set aside.

The plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant litigation delay, did not establish that the deadline was missed through inadvertence, and the court found a strong presumption of prejudice to the defendant due to the passage of time and the evolving nature of the plaintiffs' claim.

Consequently, the motion to set aside the dismissal order was denied, and the City was presumptively entitled to its costs.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced three separate actions alleging various misconducts over 20 years against numerous defendants, including government entities, police services, healthcare facilities, and media corporations.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss or stay the actions as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, citing rambling pleadings, grandiose claims for damages (exceeding $800 million), and potential limitation period issues.

The court found the actions to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process but, considering the plaintiff's self-represented status and lack of prior opportunity to amend, decided to continue the stay rather than dismiss the actions outright.

The plaintiff was granted a limited opportunity to seek leave to amend his Statements of Claim by a specified date, failing which the actions could be dismissed.