Heather Burnett

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to note the Crown in default and obtain default judgment after alleging that the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The court considered whether the plaintiff complied with the notice requirement in s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which requires that notice of claim be served at least 60 days before commencing an action.

The court held that an action is commenced when the statement of claim is issued, not when it is served.

Because the claim was issued before the required notice period elapsed, the proceeding was a nullity and the statutory precondition to suing the Crown was not met.

In addition, the Crown had delivered a statement of defence before being noted in default, meaning it was not in default in any event.

Following dismissal of claims against several defendants in a civil action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Multiple defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff had advanced serious and unfounded allegations attacking their integrity.

The court reviewed the governing principles for costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness and the expectations of the parties.

Although the allegations were serious and unsupported, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the self‑represented plaintiff appeared misguided rather than malicious.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful defendants in varying amounts, payable within 30 days.

The self‑represented plaintiff commenced a new action against numerous parties, including her former employer, its insurers, opposing counsel, and her own former lawyers, arising from circumstances surrounding her termination and the settlement of an earlier wrongful dismissal action.

Multiple defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim or obtain summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by abuse of process, the prior settlement and release, limitation periods, and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to re‑litigate issues resolved in the earlier action and that many claims were legally untenable, including claims against opposing counsel and insurers who owed no duty of care to an adverse party.

Claims alleging breach of privacy, breach of confidence, defamation, Charter violations, and Human Rights Code violations were also found to disclose no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck against most defendants without leave to amend and summary judgment was granted dismissing the remaining claims of conspiracy and extortion against them.