J. Hunter

On a motion in a proposed class proceeding, the moving party sought an order sealing specified portions of the responding record containing sensitive youth-related personal information, with alternative relief based on statutory privacy protections under the CYFSA and YCJA.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework and related appellate authorities, the court found a serious risk to an important public interest in protecting youth privacy and concluded narrower alternatives were insufficient.

The court held the salutary effects, including protection of dignity and trial fairness, outweighed the limited deleterious effect on the open court principle given the scope of the material.

An interim sealing order was granted on agreed terms, and the alternative statutory declaration was not decided.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to determine the appropriate sentence for Trinity Bible Chapel and six individuals (the "Contemnors") who were found in contempt of a January 22, 2021 court order.

The order restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons, contravening Ontario Regulation 82/20.

The Contemnors had intentionally and publicly breached the order, having previously expressed an intent to engage in civil disobedience rather than challenge the legislation constitutionally.

The court considered proportionality, mitigating and aggravating factors, deterrence, denunciation, and similar sentences.

The court imposed fines totaling $38,000 ($15,000 for Trinity Bible Chapel, and varying amounts for the individual Contemnors based on their involvement) and fixed costs of $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondents, a church and its elders, for breaching a court order that restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondents had notice of it, and they intentionally breached it by holding a service with approximately 225 people.

All respondents were found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing.

This motion concerned compelling answers to undertakings and refusals given on examinations for discovery in a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent treatment of Yasmeen Mukhtiar following a C-section, leading to paralysis and a diagnosis of conversion disorder.

The court reviewed the scope of discovery, the relevance of questions, and the principles governing hypothetical questions in medical malpractice cases.

It also considered the role and responsibilities of the Most Responsible Physician (MRP) in a multidisciplinary team.

The Master largely granted the plaintiffs' requests, ordering many of the defendant physicians to provide further answers and documents.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of the deadline to set the action down for trial, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action, stemming from a 1998 arrest, had been stayed due to related criminal proceedings until 2017.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the preference for merits-based decisions and timely resolution.

It found the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay, including the criminal proceedings and subsequent steps taken to gather evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the defendants demonstrated actual prejudice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, extending the deadline, and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the Toronto Police Services Board and two constables for damages, alleging excessive force during arrest and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the force used by the constables was justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and that their investigation met the applicable standard of care, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility and that his claims of injury and loss of income were not substantiated by the evidence.

The plaintiff sought leave to further amend his statement of claim to include allegations of conspiracy against the police and Crown attorneys regarding his arrests during a native protest.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred.

The court found that while the proposed amendments met the test for particularity, they attempted to resurrect previously struck allegations from December 2006 and were therefore statute-barred.

The court struck the conspiracy paragraphs without leave to amend, but allowed other unchallenged amendments.

Following a successful negligence trial where damages were agreed at approximately $7.85 million, the plaintiffs sought costs of $660,000.

The plaintiffs had previously settled with two defendants for $1,000,000 and received costs up to October 2005.

The plaintiffs beat their Rule 49 offer to settle made on March 12, 2015.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the remaining defendant at $400,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff, a 10-year-old boy, was struck by a vehicle while crossing a busy road at a school crosswalk.

The crossing guard employed by the defendant municipality had left her post early.

The driver of the vehicle was found to be speeding in poor weather conditions.

The court found both the driver and the municipality liable, apportioning fault equally at 50% each.

The court dismissed the defendants' claim of contributory negligence against the child.

The plaintiffs, who were arrested multiple times during counter-protests at the Caledonia native occupation, brought a motion to amend their statements of claim to add new allegations of wrongful arrest, Charter violations, conspiracy, and harassment.

The defendant Crown brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the amended claims.

The court held that several of the new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as they constituted separate events rather than a continuing tort.

The court also struck the conspiracy and harassment claims for lack of particulars, but granted leave to amend.

The Crown's motion to strike the defamation claim was dismissed, as the court found the impugned remarks were capable of referring to the plaintiff despite not naming him specifically.

The respondent was charged with driving a commercial vehicle not equipped with a working speed limiting system contrary to section 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

At trial, the respondent challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it infringed his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by preventing him from accelerating beyond 105 km/h to avoid dangerous driving situations.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondent and struck down the provision.

The Crown appealed and brought an application to admit fresh evidence in the form of a supplementary affidavit from an expert assessing a new study on speed limiter safety released after trial.

The appeal judge granted the application, finding the fresh evidence satisfied all four Palmer criteria and was in the interests of justice.

In a medical malpractice action alleging negligent prenatal care and delivery resulting in brain damage, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling the defendant physician to attend an examination under Rule 39.03 before the hearing of the defendant’s motion to strike the claim.

The defendant had moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, asserting that the pleading disclosed no material facts and was incapable of response.

The court held that where a party asserts in written submissions that it cannot respond to a pleading yet files no evidence supporting that position, the opposing party may examine that party prior to the motion to test the factual basis of the assertion.

The proposed examination was limited to issues relevant to the motion to strike.

The court concluded that the moving party met the modest threshold for an examination under Rule 39.03.