J. Glick

The defendants, a police officer and the Crown, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs, who were suing for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution following their acquittals on sexual assault charges.

The court first determined that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motions after the actions were set down for trial, and granted leave.

The court then found that the defendants had a good defence on the merits, as the plaintiffs' committal to trial after a preliminary inquiry provided strong evidence of reasonable and probable grounds for the charges.

Concluding that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario and that an order would not prevent them from proceeding to trial, the court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in the amounts of $40,000 and $30,000.

The plaintiffs sought leave to extend the time for service of their statement of claim almost two years after the deadline.

The action alleged breach of a 1993 agreement regarding timber harvesting buffer zones.

The Crown argued the action was a nullity for failure to provide notice under s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court found the plaintiffs' prior correspondence did not constitute proper notice to the Crown.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay in service.

The motion was dismissed and the action against both defendants was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid Ontario refused funding.

The court considered whether the accused had exhausted Legal Aid appeals, was indigent, and whether counsel was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The evidence showed the accused had no income while incarcerated, had exhausted available financial resources, and had not deliberately depleted assets to qualify for assistance.

Given the seriousness of the charge, complexity of the case, and the accused’s limited education and legal experience, the court held that representation by counsel was essential to preserve fair trial rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff’s written costs submissions were filed out of time and were not considered by the court.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event.

The court accepted the defendants’ reduced request for partial indemnity costs and noted that the proceeding had been ill-advised, unduly prolonged, and at times conducted in an abusive fashion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $55,662.16.

The plaintiff sued the OPP and an investigating officer for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being investigated for allegedly defrauding an elderly woman and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The police concluded there were no grounds for criminal charges but shared information with other agencies.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding the investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and the plaintiff failed to prove any compensable damages or genuine issue requiring a trial.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s construction tendering claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of its Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, holding that a nominal offer to dismiss the action without costs did not justify enhanced costs absent sanctionable conduct by the plaintiff.

Given the unsettled state of the law on construction tendering issues and the legitimate legal dispute raised, the court found the case warranted litigation.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded with reductions to certain fees and disbursements, including expert and travel expenses.

The plaintiff contractor challenged the rejection of its bid in a public tender for a highway construction project, alleging breach of the tendering process and seeking lost profits after the contract was awarded to a higher bidder.

The owner investigated the bid following a complaint and determined that the bidder had understated the declared value of imported steel, a factor used to calculate the adjusted tender price.

The court held that the owner was entitled to investigate compliance beyond the face of the bid and that the inaccurate declaration constituted a material non-compliance with the tender requirements, preventing formation of Contract A under the tendering framework.

The court further held that even if there had been a breach, the claim would have been barred by an exclusion clause in the tender documents.

The action was dismissed.