4 total
Leave to appeal granted due to conflicting decisions and good reason to doubt correctness of motion judge's rulings.
The defendants, Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motions for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.
The underlying action involved a fatal collision following a high-speed chase by Akwesasne Police Service officers, with the plaintiffs alleging vicarious and direct liability against the government defendants.
The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision conflicted with established appellate authorities on the tests for summary judgment, amending pleadings, and establishing a private law duty of care, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.
Summary judgment denied; complex policing agreement raises triable issues of government liability.
Civil action arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision following a police pursuit conducted by officers of a First Nations police service operating under a quadripartite policing agreement among federal and provincial governments and a First Nation.
Provincial governments moved for summary judgment arguing they could not be vicariously liable for the conduct of the police officers because they exercised no operational control.
The court held that the complex governance structure, degree of governmental oversight, and the unique jurisdictional circumstances raised factual issues regarding control, partnership, and potential vicarious liability that required a full evidentiary record at trial.
The plaintiffs also sought to amend their statement of claim to allege negligence for failure to implement recommendations from a prior policing audit; most amendments were permitted.
Summary judgment was refused and leave to amend was largely granted.
Appeal dismissed; Province of Quebec has procedural immunity against suits brought in Ontario courts.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his statement of claim against the Attorney General of Quebec and its agents.
The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the Province of Quebec has procedural immunity against such a suit in Ontario.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that while Quebec legislation permits suits against the Crown, it only renders Quebec liable to be sued in its own courts, not in the courts of other provinces.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; action against former partner, her lawyer, and registry official properly struck as abuse of process.
The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against several defendants, including his former partner, her lawyer, and a Quebec civil registry official, as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The action arose following a long history of paternity disputes and the appellant's conviction for criminal harassment.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, noting that the claims against the registry official and the lawyer lacked foundation, and the action against the former partner was properly deemed an abuse of process.
