James Schneider

The defendant Parks Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action based on the expiration of the two-year limitation period under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff foundation sought to avoid the limitation period by arguing that the action was for declaratory relief only (exempt under section 16(1)(a)) or that it was based on Aboriginal and treaty rights (exempt under sections 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f)).

The court found that the declaratory relief sought had no practical effect and was merely an attempt to circumvent the limitation period.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not an Aboriginal person or acting as an agent for Aboriginal peoples, and that the action was fundamentally a breach of contract claim that was time-barred.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge to hear references under s. 74 of the Firearms Act.

The respondents, firearms owners, initiated these references after receiving letters from the RCMP/Registrar stating their firearm registration certificates were "automatically nullified" due to new regulations (SOR/2020-96).

The Attorney General of Canada argued these letters were merely informational and did not constitute a "revocation" triggering s. 74 jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that the nullification of registration certificates occurred by operation of law (the new regulations), not by an individualized decision or revocation by the Registrar.

Consequently, the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction under s. 74 of the Firearms Act, and the disclosure order issued by the reference judge was invalid.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision (2023 ONSC 1073) which dismissed an application and an action against the Attorney General of Canada, and struck out a statement of claim against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) with leave to amend.

The plaintiff and Attorney General of Canada settled costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought partial indemnity costs of $2,127.50 from the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to provide responding costs submissions despite multiple opportunities.

The court found the AGO was largely successful and justified in bringing the motion to strike.

The court awarded the AGO $2,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiff to the Minister of Finance for Ontario within 30 days.

This decision addresses a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the Ontario Court of Justice's jurisdiction to hear reference cases under the Firearms Act.

The proposed intervener, J.P., sought to join the appeal, arguing his unique procedural journey in a similar s. 74 application would offer an additional perspective.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the intervention, contending J.P.'s perspective would not be distinct from the existing respondents and could unduly expand the litigation's scope.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while J.P. had an interest, his position was not meaningfully different from other similarly situated individuals, and granting intervention would expand the record and present evidentiary problems.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, initiated an action and an application against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) and the Attorney General of Canada (AGC), seeking substantial damages for alleged infringements of rights during his detention and treatment.

The AGO moved to dismiss the action and application, and the AGC moved to consolidate and strike the pleadings.

The court dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to duplication.

It dismissed the action against the AGC, finding no reasonable cause of action.

For the AGO, the court struck out claims related to municipal police, correctional facilities, tribunals, and healthcare institutions without leave to amend, as the AGO is not vicariously liable for these entities.

Claims against Crown prosecutors were also struck for insufficient pleading of malicious prosecution or wrongful non-disclosure, but with leave to amend to provide necessary particulars.

The entire Statement of Claim was struck with leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim within 45 days, specifically for claims against Crown prosecutors.

The appellants, the Attorney General of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondents' claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and civil conspiracy were not statute-barred.

The core issue was the application of the "appropriate means" element of the discoverability test under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it was premature for the respondents to commence their actions until related civil forfeiture proceedings and an appeal of a costs order (which addressed Crown misconduct) were concluded.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the limitation period had not expired.

The defendant, Department of National Defence (DND), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for not complying with pleading rules, and to deny leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a self-represented former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member, sought damages for wrongful/constructive dismissal and alleged Charter violations (ss. 2(d), 7, 15).

The court found the claim deficient as it contained no material facts.

It also determined that the plaintiff's proposed Charter claims were "doomed to fail" and that the plaintiff had not exhausted the exclusive statutory grievance procedure under the National Defence Act.

The motion to strike the claim in its entirety without leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

The applicant, a convicted sex offender, brought an application for habeas corpus and Charter damages challenging the revocation of his day parole and the search of his vehicle at a halfway house.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the habeas corpus claims, finding that the parole system under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a complete and expert process for review.

The court also held that the applicant's Charter claims for damages could not be determined on the limited evidentiary record of an application and converted those claims into an action, ordering the applicant to file a statement of claim.