Ian McKellar

Following a motion to strike where the defendants were largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants had successfully struck the plaintiff's claims of negligent investigation without leave to amend, and malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office with leave to amend.

Applying the normative approach to costs and the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim, seeking dismissal of the action.

The plaintiff's claim asserted causes of action for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and misfeasance in public office, stemming from disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society of Upper Canada that initially revoked his license but were later set aside on appeal.

The court struck the negligent investigation claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to the Law Society's immunity from negligence in good faith performance of its duties.

The claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office were struck with leave to amend, as they lacked the full particulars of malice and bad faith required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court refused to dismiss the action as an abuse of process, determining that the plaintiff was not attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Law Society Appeal Division.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions on whether the respondent's claim against the estate for $150,000, pursuant to a separation agreement, was statute-barred.

The deceased had failed to maintain life insurance as required, creating a first charge on the estate.

The estate trustee withheld information from the respondent that the life insurance policies had lapsed, delaying the respondent's discovery of her claim.

The court held that while the two-year limitation period under s. 38 of the Trustee Act applied, it was tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment due to the estate trustee's unconscionable conduct in withholding material facts.

The respondent's claim was therefore permitted to proceed.