2 total
Summary judgment was granted dismissing a negligent police investigation claim because the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay arson charges.
The Police Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent investigation.
The plaintiff alleged negligent investigation regarding a fire incident, which led to his arrest and nine-month incarceration before his acquittal.
The court applied legal principles governing negligent police investigation and summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the police's standard of care or to demonstrate overwhelming evidence discrediting the police's primary witnesses.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action.
Summary judgment denied where foreseeability of vehicle entering roadside clear zone required trial.
The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of negligence claims arising from a single‑vehicle accident at a rural intersection.
The plaintiffs alleged that the municipality’s reconstruction of the roadway created a dangerous condition, including an inadequate clear zone and steep embankment adjacent to the roadway.
The municipality relied on the statutory bar in s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing the accident occurred on an untravelled portion of the highway.
The court held that determining whether the clear zone and drainage ditch embankment constituted an untravelled portion of the highway required factual findings regarding reasonable foreseeability and road design standards.
Because these issues formed part of a broader factual matrix that could not be fully appreciated on the record, the municipality failed to meet the summary judgment test.
