Joel Levine

The plaintiffs brought a successful motion for leave to file a late expert report and affidavit.

The court determined the costs of that motion.

Finding that the relief granted to the plaintiffs was an indulgence to ensure trial fairness, and noting the unreasonable delay by plaintiffs' counsel in delivering the report, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.

The defendants were awarded a total of $18,000 in costs.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a severe assault on the plaintiff inmate by three other inmates at Millhaven Institution.

The court found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) breached its duty of care by placing the non-violent plaintiff with highly violent offenders, failing to enforce cell door protocols, ignoring the plaintiff's emergency cell alarm, and lacking adequate video surveillance.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability because the evidence overwhelmingly established CSC's negligence and causation.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on liability, with damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The defendant Department of National Defence moved for a stay of the plaintiff's action pursuant to s. 91(2) of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act.

The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a military officer during a pre-enlistment physical examination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a member of the military at the time of the alleged assault and that her injuries were not aggravated by her subsequent brief military service.

Therefore, the statutory bar under s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act did not apply, and the action could proceed.

The plaintiffs, family members of a deceased correctional officer, brought an action against the employer under the Family Law Act.

After the action was set down for trial, the defendant moved for leave to amend its statement of defence to argue the claims were barred by the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and for leave to bring a summary judgment motion.

The court partially granted the motion to amend, allowing references to the Family Law Act and Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, but refused amendments relying on the collective agreement, finding the essential character of the claims did not fall within its scope.

The motion for leave to bring summary judgment was dismissed.