Jeremy Glick

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.

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.

On a Rule 21 and Rule 25 motion, the moving defendants sought to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution, negligence, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The court held it was plain and obvious the malicious prosecution and false arrest allegations could not succeed because the claimant's conviction had been upheld on appeal.

The court further held the negligence allegations tied to correctional policy decisions and claims against the public guardian failed to disclose a private law duty of care, and many allegations constituted impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process.

The statement of claim was struck as against the moving defendants and the action against them was dismissed, with costs awarded to those defendants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming the Chief of Police's dismissal of his complaint against police officers.

The complaint, alleging assault and fabricated charges, was dismissed because it was made more than six months after the incident.

The Divisional Court found the Commission's decision reasonable, noting a 14-month delay in bringing the complaint, including a four-month delay after the related charges were disposed of.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion questioning the constitutional validity and application of section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as a costs order made by the application judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit.

The court held that the quantum of costs awarded was reasonable and that there was no error in awarding costs against a self-represented litigant.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring him to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's thorough reasons explaining the factual and legal grounds for the declaration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs, family members of a young man fatally shot by police, sued the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for negligent investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The motion judge and Divisional Court allowed the claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that it was plain and obvious that the SIU does not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime or their families.

The SIU's statutory duty is owed to the public at large, and recognizing a private duty would conflict with its overarching public mandate.

The self-represented appellant purported to appeal a costs-only order following the dismissal of his underlying action.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no right of appeal from a costs order and that leave is required.

Treating the materials as an application for leave to appeal costs, the Court refused leave and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the four responding groups.

The moving party sought to set aside three orders made by the Deputy Registrar dismissing his appeals for failing to perfect them.

The underlying orders had struck out the moving party's claims against various defendants, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, former employers, and their lawyers, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that the moving party's delay contributed to the failure to perfect and that the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success, as the OHRC cannot be sued, responses to OHRC complaints are protected by absolute privilege, and the pleadings failed to disclose known causes of action.

The moving party, who was convicted of second-degree murder, brought a motion for an order compelling the disclosure of records relating to the interpretation services provided at his trial.

He sought these records to support a proposed application to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, alleging a breach of his section 14 Charter rights due to incompetent interpreters.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish any air of reality to his claims that the interpretation services were deficient or had any adverse impact on the fairness of his trial.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to stay a contempt proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the material before the motion judge did not support the request, particularly as there was no evidence that an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal the underlying interlocutory injunction order could succeed.

The appellants appealed a contempt order and the penalty imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even excluding the alleged hearsay evidence, there was ample evidence to support the findings of contempt.

The court also upheld the penalty, characterizing it as moderate in the circumstances, and awarded costs to the respondent.