Jeremy Wright

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking to reverse previous orders that had struck out his statement of claim as vexatious and an abuse of process, and to obtain default judgment.

The plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing of his own motion.

The Federal Court found the motion to be wholly without merit, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the plaintiff's extensive history of filing frivolous proceedings and making unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against judges.

The Court dismissed the motion, ordered costs payable forthwith, and exercised its plenary powers to prohibit the plaintiff from filing further materials without leave and from commencing any new proceedings based on the same subject matter.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for defamation, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the statements were protected by qualified privilege.

The plaintiff, a construction superintendent, alleged that a vendor performance management report detailing problems with his work was defamatory and had been posted on the MERX database.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that because the report may have been published on MERX to an unknown number of subscribers, it was not possible at this stage to determine if the defence of qualified privilege applied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Somji J. dated April 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

The defendants, Ottawa Police Service and Cst.

Keith Patrick, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation of a sexual assault complaint.

The plaintiff argued that the claim was not statute-barred due to section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, which removes limitation periods for proceedings based on sexual assault.

The court held that the police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime regarding the conduct of an investigation.

Consequently, the plaintiff could not rely on section 16, and the claim was both statute-barred and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, commercial tenants of a sports bar, sought leave to amend their statement of claim against the defendant landlord to add claims under the Occupiers' Liability Act and for punitive damages related to toxic mold on the premises.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the original claim contained sufficient material facts regarding the defendant's control of the premises and alleged bad faith conduct, such that the amendments merely particularized existing claims and did not constitute new causes of action.

The plaintiff sued several police constables and the Ottawa Police Services Board for over $2 million, alleging excessive force during his arrest in 2010 caused severe injuries.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked evidence to prove causation.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce any medical records or expert opinions establishing that the defendants caused his injuries, and noted evidence of pre-existing injuries and hospital restraints as alternative causes.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendants, the Ottawa Police Services Board et al., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a 74-year-old Polish-speaking man with limited English, was arrested and charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement based on a complaint from an individual with a significant history of police contacts and dishonesty, which was not disclosed at the plaintiff's bail hearing.

The court found that while initial reasonable grounds for arrest might have existed, there were conflicting expert opinions regarding the police's standard of care in their subsequent and ongoing investigation.

Citing the Supreme Court's framework in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, the court determined that these genuine issues of fact, particularly the contentious expert evidence on causation and standard of care, required a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action by the motion judge under Rule 2.1.01.

The appellant's claim alleged that the City of Ottawa and its police service ought to have prevented an unnamed person from posting materials claiming the appellant was a spy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the respondent is not responsible at law for the torts of police officers, and that the claim does not disclose a cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant police board brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and breaches of ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights, stemming from his 2004 arrest and charges.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing issue estoppel based on a prior criminal ruling that excluded evidence due to a s. 8 Charter breach.

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and charges at the time, despite the subsequent exclusion of evidence in criminal proceedings.

It determined that the prior Charter remedy (exclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges) was sufficient and no further monetary damages were appropriate, especially given the plaintiff likely committed the offences.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court issued supplementary reasons and a costs decision following a summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant Crime Stoppers could not rely on s. 3(3) of the Libel and Slander Act because it was not pleaded and that s. 3(7) applied due to a refusal to broadcast a statement.

The court clarified that Crime Stoppers was permitted to amend its defence to rely on s. 3(3) and that s. 3(7) did not apply as there was no refusal to publish a retraction, given the publication was removed and the plaintiff's counsel indicated satisfaction.

Regarding costs, the parties agreed to no order as to costs between the plaintiff and the Ottawa Police Services Board, and costs of the motion between the plaintiff and Crime Stoppers were made payable in the cause, to be fixed by the trial judge.

The plaintiff sued Ottawa Capital Area Crime Stoppers and the Ottawa Police Services Board for defamation and negligence after police posted her image on the Crime Stoppers website, identifying her as a "suspect" who "stole a purse." The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted Crime Stoppers' motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding it had a complete statutory defence under s. 3(3) of the Libel and Slander Act.

However, the police defendants' motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim was dismissed, as genuine issues for trial remained regarding available defences.

Both defendants' motions to dismiss the negligence claims were also dismissed, as the existence of a duty of care could not be determined on affidavit evidence.

Appeal from a trial judgment finding police liable for negligent investigation, false arrest, unlawful detention, unlawful imprisonment, and Charter breaches arising from the arrest of the respondent and execution of a public safety firearms warrant at his residence.

The trial judge awarded over $50,000 in damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in imposing a standard of care inconsistent with established jurisprudence, failed to apply proper legal tests, and engaged in impermissible second-guessing of police discretion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding the trial judge had erred in multiple respects including defining the standard of care without evidentiary basis, misapplying the reasonable and probable grounds test, and conducting improper warrant review.

The defendant police services board brought a motion to strike paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's amendments, which alleged the board failed to have a system to track Charter violations and excessive force by officers, fell under the board's statutory responsibilities and provided sufficient material facts.

The motion to strike the paragraph in its entirety was dismissed, though the word 'training' was struck as it violated a previous order.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraph 64 of the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had previously been granted leave to amend certain subparagraphs.

The court found that the plaintiff could not add the Chief of Police to the narrative as it was outside the scope of the previous order.

However, the court held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient material facts to support the novel claim that the Police Services Board failed to have a system in place to recognize officers' propensity for Charter breaches.

The motion to strike paragraph 64 in its entirety was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants, the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers, brought a motion to strike paragraph 64 of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim.

The court applied the test for striking pleadings and found that the paragraphs relating to training and supervision should be struck without leave to amend, relying on established case law.

The court also struck the remaining paragraphs for failing to provide sufficient material facts, but granted leave to amend those specific portions.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendant Ottawa Police Services Board brought a motion to strike paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The court found that paragraphs 28(a) and (b) lacked sufficient material facts to support the allegations regarding the Board's knowledge of the officers' propensity for excessive force, and struck them with leave to amend.

Paragraphs 28(c), (d), and (e), which related to training and supervision, were struck without leave to amend based on established precedent.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $3,360.

The plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell into a glass wall while playing squash at a city-owned sports centre.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants' documentary record deficient, particularly because their sole affidavit relied on information and belief without specifying the sources, failing to meet the evidentiary burden to establish the standard of care, voluntary assumption of risk, or the independent contractor defence.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $117,629.60 after recovering modest damages (under $50,000 each) in an action against the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation, false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, negligence in training, and Charter rights breaches.

The Defendants argued no costs should be awarded due to the low recovery, suggesting the case should have proceeded under Simplified Procedure.

The court found it reasonable for the Plaintiffs to have used the ordinary procedure given the importance of Charter rights, the need for discovery, oral evidence, and the complexity of legal issues.

However, the court found the Plaintiffs' counsel's docketing heavy, hourly rates inappropriate for the entire eight-year litigation, and the use of two senior lawyers unjustified given the modest recovery.

Considering proportionality and the importance of the issues, the court awarded the Plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, less $3,750 owed to the Defendants for an unsuccessful motion, resulting in a net recovery of $61,250.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers, against the plaintiff Deana Rotondo.

Rotondo's action for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches had been dismissed.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs for the entire action, including the summary judgment motion.

The court found no reason to deviate from the general rule that the successful party on a summary judgment motion is entitled to costs of both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding unnecessary delay by the defendants and the relevance of a cited case were rejected.

The court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $16,721.30 plus post-judgment interest.

The plaintiffs sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation, false arrest, and Charter breaches following a dramatic police raid on their home.

The raid stemmed from a long-standing neighbourhood dispute over a drainage pipe, which led an investigating officer to obtain a public safety warrant and arrest the plaintiff for mischief and intimidation.

The court found the officer's investigation was negligent, as he failed to interview key witnesses or consider the lack of urgency.

The court also held the arrest was unlawful and the search violated section 8 of the Charter due to material omissions in the warrant application and the unreasonable use of a SWAT team.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for false arrest, negligent investigation, wrongful seizure of firearms, and Charter breaches.