Heather Mackay

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

Three Toronto police officers sued the Attorney General of Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging that Crown Attorneys failed to properly investigate and defend against allegations of police misconduct made by an accused during a criminal trial, causing reputational harm to the officers.

The Attorney General moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court struck the negligence claim, finding that while a prima facie duty of care might exist, it was negated by policy concerns regarding the diversion of Crown Attorneys from their primary duties and the potential chilling effect on prosecutorial discretion.

However, the court allowed the misfeasance in public office claim to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded the necessary elements of deliberate and unlawful conduct.

The Attorney General submitted that there be no order as to costs regarding the motion by Ontario to strike the claim.

The plaintiff did not take serious issue with this disposition.

The court ordered no costs on the motion.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including a nurse, her employer, a police detective, and Ontario, for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conversion following her acquittal on a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her spouse.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rules 21 and 25.11.

The court struck the claims against the nurse and her employer, finding they did not directly cause the arrest or initiate the prosecution.

The court also struck the malicious prosecution and conversion claims against the police defendants for failing to plead material facts.

However, the court refused to strike the false arrest and imprisonment claims against the police on limitation grounds, finding it was not plain and obvious that the limitation period began on the date of arrest rather than the date of acquittal.

The plaintiff, whose murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after a reference, brought a civil action against the Crown and police alleging negligence and wrongdoing related to an undisclosed alibi.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding that it sought to relitigate factual findings already made by the Court of Appeal regarding the absence of wrongdoing by the Crown and police.

The court also held that, alternatively, a permanent stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act was warranted due to the impossibility of a fair trial given the passage of over 40 years, faded memories, and lost evidence.