J.D. Ekpenyong

The court considered an application by Donna Mary Whibbs for an order declaring Daniel Lee Dobson a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the parties' history of litigation, including proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board, restraining order applications, and multiple Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that Dobson had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted litigation in a vexatious manner, primarily to harass the applicant and her counsel.

The court granted a tailored vexatious litigant order prohibiting Dobson from instituting or continuing proceedings against Whibbs and her counsel without leave of the court.

The defendant successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's $2.2 million defamation claim and sought partial indemnity costs of $8,836.76.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing that the defendant used salaried in-house counsel and that a costs award would have a chilling effect, while also requesting a sealing order in her costs submissions.

The court dismissed the sealing order request for failing to follow proper procedure.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs, confirming that in-house lawyers are entitled to seek costs on an equal basis to external lawyers and finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board for defamation and other torts arising from a 2019 arrest and a subsequent 2021 police report.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory written notice under section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, which acts as an absolute bar to the defamation action.

The court also noted that the police reports were protected by qualified privilege.

This decision provides supplementary reasons to a prior motion to strike pleadings in a medical malpractice case.

The court ruled on previously unaddressed paragraphs and clarified others in the Statement of Claim and Proposed Amended Statement of Claim.

It addressed allegations related to a doctor's deficient skills, failure to disclose, and the hospital's knowledge of complaints.

The court struck certain pleadings that improperly referenced unidentified prior conduct without sufficient material facts, while upholding others related to breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages where sufficient material facts were pleaded.

The defendant physician in a medical negligence action brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The impugned paragraphs alleged prior negligence, discipline proceedings, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court struck the allegations regarding discipline proceedings and unparticularized prior negligence, finding they lacked probative value and violated the rule against similar fact evidence.

However, the court declined to strike the breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding sufficient material facts were pleaded regarding the physician's alleged failure to disclose his high complication rates and deficient skills.

The parties appeared before the Divisional Court and requested an adjournment of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board concerning a $15,000 damages claim.

Citing proportionality and the inefficient use of judicial resources, the court proposed deciding the appeal on a written record rather than reconvening for oral argument.

The parties consented, and the court issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the exchange of written materials and costs submissions.