Jessica Prince

The defendants, Workplace Health & Cost Solutions (WHCS) and The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), brought motions to strike the plaintiff, Dr. Brenda Steinnagel's, statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or for being scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful dismissal, economic torts, conspiracy, and fraudulent conduct, claiming the defendants orchestrated her termination for refusing to alter medical opinions to deny claimant benefits.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the statement of claim, read generously, sufficiently pleaded the causes of action, including unlawful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and unlawful act conspiracy.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the action could not succeed and that allegations of fraudulent conduct were relevant to the context of dismissal and potential punitive damages.

The moving parties (the Caribbean defendants) sought an order under Rule 57.07 directing that the costs of the action, previously awarded in their favour in the amount of $84,000, be made payable personally by the plaintiff's former lawyer on a joint and several basis with the plaintiff.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The court found that the lawyer's conduct in drafting and advancing a vexatious claim with scandalous and unsupported allegations caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court granted the motion, ordering the lawyer to pay the $84,000 costs jointly and severally with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants appealed an order of a Master granting leave to amend a statement of claim in a solicitor’s negligence action.

The appellants argued the amendments introduced new causes of action related to defamation and republication that were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the original pleading already contained the material facts necessary to ground the negligence claim based on the solicitor’s alleged failure to commence proceedings, including defamation claims arising from a police association news release and subsequent publications.

The amendments merely clarified and expanded on the same negligence theory rather than introducing new causes of action.

Applying the liberal amendment principles under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court dismissed the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a case management judge in favour of certain defendants after the moving party had noted them in default.

The underlying dispute arose from procedural disagreements concerning the timing of a jurisdiction motion and related examinations.

The case management judge found the default tactic unreasonable and unnecessary given the defendants’ clear intention to defend and the availability of a scheduled case conference to resolve the procedural issues.

The court held there was no basis to doubt the correctness of the costs decision and that the dispute raised no issue of general importance warranting leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.