Howard Yegendorf

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed a civil action brought by Stephen Massey, purportedly also on behalf of his two daughters (J.M. and C.M.), against 31 defendants including the Children's Aid Society, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, various lawyers, and his ex-wife.

The claim, a collateral attack on prior family law proceedings that concluded in 2016, alleged child abuse and professional misconduct.

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Massey with prejudice due to his failure to attend case conferences, non-compliance with court orders, and the action being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, largely barred by the limitation period.

The claim on behalf of J.M. and C.M. was dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential discoverability issues and the uncertainty of their authorization.

The court imposed a leave requirement for Mr. Massey to initiate future proceedings against these defendants and awarded costs against him.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

This endorsement addresses the importance of the open court principle in the context of motions or applications for approval of settlements reached by, or on behalf of, minors or persons under a disability.

The plaintiffs sought an order dispensing with service of relevant materials on the opposing party, citing solicitor-client and litigation-settlement privilege.

The court reviewed the legal framework for dispensing with service and sealing orders, emphasizing the high bar set by the open court principle and the Sierra Club criteria.

The court found the evidence insufficient to justify dispensing with service, concluding that claims of privilege alone are generally not enough to override the public interest in transparency and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction in such matters.

The plaintiffs' request to dispense with service was dismissed, and they were ordered to serve the defendants with the complete motion record.

The Third Party, Miguel Villeneuve, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike third-party claims by the Laferrière defendants and Calypso Theme Waterpark.

The claims alleged Villeneuve caused the plaintiff's injuries, which directly contradicted findings from a prior criminal conviction of the Laferrière defendants for assaulting the plaintiff.

The court found that these third-party claims constituted a collateral attack on the criminal court's findings and were an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, and the third-party claims were struck.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a condominium declaration restricting units to single family residence use, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants had been largely successful on the underlying application, obtaining findings that the condominium corporation was obligated to enforce its declaration and that certain grandfathering provisions in a proposed rule were unreasonable.

The court held that litigation was necessary to compel compliance with the declaration and that the applicants achieved the substantive relief sought.

Considering the factors under rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs jointly and severally against the corporation and a director who had breached his statutory duties.

The applicants, unit owners at Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 111, sought a declaration that a proposed rule defining 'single family residence' and its grandfathering provisions were unreasonable and inconsistent with the condominium's declaration.

They also sought an oppression remedy against the board and a declaration that the board president breached his duties as a director.

The court found the ten-year grandfathering provision for existing owners to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, invalidating the rule.

The court dismissed the oppression claim against the board but found that the board president breached his standard of care as a director by actively undermining the board's efforts to enforce the declaration and acting in bad faith.