Jim Smith

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order striking out claims against Maureen Harvey (superintendent of Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre), John Doe, and Jane Doe.

The appellant sought damages for negligent investigation by Ontario Provincial Police officers and breach of duty of care by corrections officials during three years of custody.

The motion judge had struck the claims without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge failed to properly apply the generous reading standard for pleadings and set aside the striking order, allowing the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged that the decision to continue a criminal prosecution against him for fraud was motivated by racial profiling.

The court found that the statement of claim lacked sufficient material facts to support the allegations of malice and improper purpose, and struck the claim.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim, finding that the record suggested there were facts that could be pleaded to support the causes of action.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims arising from his detention at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The court struck the claims against Her Majesty the Queen because the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, rendering the action a nullity.

The claims against the superintendent were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action in her personal capacity, and the Ministry and detention centre were struck as improper parties.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate two related actions was granted.

The plaintiff sued the police and the Crown for injuries sustained when he was bitten by a police dog during his arrest.

The plaintiff had fled from a vehicle and hidden in tall grass, prompting the police to deploy a canine unit.

The dog located the plaintiff and bit him, following its 'bite and hold' training.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to use the dog and that the 'bite and hold' policy was not unreasonable.

The court assessed the plaintiff's general damages at $40,000 in the alternative.

The defendant Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff, who was previously acquitted of fraud charges, sued for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches.

The court found the claim was replete with unnecessary assumptions and failed to plead material facts supporting the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was given 90 days leave to amend the claim.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to exclude the defendant police officers from being present during each other's examinations for discovery.

The Superior Court of Justice determined that the standard of review for this mixed question of fact and law was palpable and overriding error.

Finding that the Master thoroughly reviewed the applicable law and that the plaintiffs' affidavit evidence failed to set out reasons for exclusion, the court found no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal.