Kathryn Shani

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment order dismissing his action against police services and other defendants.

The action arose from two events: an alleged negligent police investigation into a theft complaint and alleged negligent investigations into complaints of child abuse.

The motion judge dismissed the action on two grounds: no duty of care was owed by the police to the appellant, and the action was commenced after the applicable limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there was no duty of care owed to the appellant based on established precedent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking answers to six questions refused during the defendant's examination for discovery in a slip and fall case.

The court found all questions relevant to the pleadings, which included allegations regarding the defendant's duty to remove leaves, enforcement of by-laws, operational negligence of street sweepers, training of field inspectors, and the hazardous nature of leaves on sidewalks.

The motion was granted for all refused questions, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their claims against the Toronto Police Services Board.

The appellants argued that criminal proceedings were a nullity because the information was not properly vetted by the Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal found this issue was irrelevant to the summary judgment motion.

The appellants failed to file evidence supporting their claim that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds and did not cross-examine the respondents' extensive material.

The motion judge correctly found the respondents met their onus.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice dated March 24, 2016.

The Court of Appeal, in accordance with the agreement of counsel, awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $10,000, all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board and Detective Constable Andrew MacPhail for wrongful arrest and negligent investigation.

The appellant had been charged with threatening death and intimidation in connection with threatening letters and harassing phone calls made to a school, but was ultimately acquitted at trial and required to enter into a Peace Bond.

The motion judge found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the appellant, and therefore granted summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test and that ample evidence supported the finding of reasonable and probable grounds.

This endorsement addresses costs following the successful dismissal of three separate actions against the Toronto Police Services Board and other defendants.

The defendants, having succeeded in their motions to dismiss, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the fact that two plaintiffs were self-represented, while one was represented by counsel who focused on relevant issues.

The court awarded a uniform amount of $10,000 in costs against each plaintiff, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 120 days.

The plaintiffs brought actions against the police defendants for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and defamation arising from their arrests for criminal harassment and threatening death related to a series of threatening letters and phone calls directed at a school.

The police defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the actions.

The court granted the motions, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiffs, there was no evidence of malice, and the defamation claims were improperly pleaded and subject to qualified privilege.

Additionally, one plaintiff's action was barred by the limitation period.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s second dismissal for delay arising from missed set down deadlines in a municipal trip-and-fall action.

Applying the Reid factors and the contextual approach mandated by appellate authority, the court accepted that the missed deadlines resulted from inadvertence associated with file transfers, staff turnover, and administrative failures rather than abandonment of the claim.

The court held that the motion to reinstate was brought with sufficient promptness in context and that the defendant had not shown actual prejudice to its ability to defend, particularly given its prior consent to reinstatement after the same notice-related complaints.

The action was reinstated and a new set down deadline was imposed.

Following an eight‑day civil trial in which the defendants were wholly successful, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should not follow the event because the litigation was pursued in the public interest and they were allegedly impecunious.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the circumstances of the dispute, the parties’ reasonable expectations, and the existence of settlement offers.

While acknowledging potential financial hardship and the plaintiffs’ stated public interest motivations, the court found that the defendants were entitled to recover costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in a reduced amount, payable jointly by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

Prisoner passengers injured in a rear-end collision while being transported in a police prisoner transport vehicle sought punitive damages against the police service and related defendants after settling compensatory claims with other parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that the design of the transport vehicle—lacking seat belts, padding, visibility, and communication systems—demonstrated reckless disregard for prisoner safety.

The defendants argued the design reflected industry standards and balanced passenger safety with the need to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-officer violence.

The court held that punitive damages require malicious, high‑handed, or reprehensible conduct warranting denunciation.

Because the vehicle design reflected a rational policing approach supported by industry practice and reasonable debate over competing safety concerns, the conduct did not meet the threshold for punitive damages.