Kelly P. Wright

In a defamation action arising from a newspaper article, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking multiple forms of interlocutory relief, including an order requiring verbal negotiation of a discovery plan, written examinations for discovery, production records regarding access to a related statement of claim, removal of the allegedly defamatory article from a website, a further and better affidavit of documents, and amendments to pleadings.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel verbal negotiations and confirmed that parties may choose written communications regarding discovery planning.

The court also declined to interfere with the defendants’ right to conduct oral discovery and found no evidence supporting further documentary production.

Applying the heightened test for interlocutory injunctions in defamation matters, the court concluded the words complained of were not obviously defamatory and the pleaded defences were not clearly bound to fail.

The motion was largely dismissed, with only consent amendments to the plaintiff’s reply permitted.

The applicants, who were former counsel to the respondent in a dismissed medical malpractice action, brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

Following the dismissal of the underlying action, the respondent had commenced three separate lawsuits against the applicants, all of which were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent persistently attempted to re-litigate determined issues, failed to pay costs awards, and engaged in harassing and manipulative behaviour towards the court and counsel.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceedings without leave of the court.

The plaintiff claimed over $80,000 in business losses, alleging the defendant severed its telephone lines while filling a trench with concrete in a shared commercial building.

The court completely rejected the evidence of the plaintiff's owner due to numerous inconsistencies, suspect documentation, and a demonstrated pattern of guessing.

The court found no evidence that the plaintiff's telephone lines ran under the defendant's unit or that the defendant caused the disruption.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce a royalty agreement and recover unpaid royalties, asserting a valid equitable assignment of the agreement's benefits.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to establish a proper chain of title and raised a defence that an alleged breach of a restrictive covenant disentitled the plaintiffs from claiming royalties.

Applying the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 and Hryniak, the court found significant credibility and reliability concerns in the plaintiffs' affidavit evidence and concluded the intention underlying the alleged assignment could not be fairly determined on the motion record.

The court also held that the restrictive covenant argument constituted a genuine and viable defence.

The motion was dismissed and the matter required a trial.

Multiple defendants moved to strike a self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, in one instance, to set aside a noting in default.

The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were vague, nonsensical, unsupported, and in several respects beyond the court's jurisdiction, including challenges relating to information access and social benefits matters.

Applying the governing test for setting aside default and the pleading standard for striking claims, the court found the action frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The noting in default against one defendant was set aside, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety against all moving defendants without leave to amend.

On a Rule 20 motion, the defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident on the basis that the claim against the identified driver was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The court held that the driver's identity was available and discoverable from the date of the accident and that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in identifying and naming the proper defendant.

The plaintiff's limited inquiries, delayed request to police, and failure to pursue a disclosure motion were found insufficient.

The action against the driver was dismissed as statute-barred.

The moving party sought a declaration that the responding party was in breach of contract and, alternatively, an injunction restraining direct contractual and payment arrangements with member bands.

The court found there was no valid 2015 contract or memorandum of agreement because the draft contract presented in December 2014 was withdrawn on April 29, 2015 following a threatening and disturbing email that marked a breakdown in the parties' relationship.

Applying the interlocutory injunction test, the court held there was no serious issue for trial arising from the alleged 2015 contract, the alleged harm was speculative and therefore not irreparable, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding party.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for public mischief after falsely reporting an assault by his ex-common law spouse and her family.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and application of the W.D. framework were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was partially allowed to grant 30 days' credit for time the appellant spent on house arrest bail, reducing the custodial sentence from 4 months and 27 days to 3 months and 27 days.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an application challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Human Rights Code on the basis of s. 15 of the Charter and provincial legislative competence.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s public interest standing framework, the court held the applicants had neither private standing nor public interest standing, as they showed no direct interest, no genuine stake, and no adequate factual foundation for the challenge.

The court further held that, in any event, the application disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was without merit.

The application was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs of $2,500 were awarded to the successful moving party, payable to the Minister of Finance.

On a pre-injunction motion, the respondent to the application sought to strike portions of two affidavits filed in support of a Charter challenge to federal election legislation.

The court reviewed the opinion evidence rule and emphasized caution in excising affidavit evidence where the injunction judge, with the full record, was better positioned to assess admissibility and relevance.

The court declined to strike the affidavit evidence of one deponent and most of the other deponent’s affidavit, despite concerns that some passages resembled expert opinion or were of doubtful relevance.

One paragraph criticizing the legislative process was struck as clearly irrelevant.

The moving defendants sought leave to extend time to serve and file a jury notice in a long-standing civil action arising from a fire, where damages had already been agreed and only liability remained for trial.

Applying the governing Divisional Court framework, the court considered the circumstances of delay and whether the opposing parties would suffer prejudice.

The court found no meaningful delay, held that the streamlined liability-only issues left ample time to prepare for a jury trial, and rejected the asserted prejudice as unsupported.

The motion was granted.

The accused challenged the admissibility of crack cocaine, marijuana, and cash seized during a roadside search following a vehicle stop based entirely on anonymous and confidential source information.

The court held the police lacked reasonable grounds to suspect the occupants were connected to a particular recent or ongoing crime, finding the tips vague, stale, uncorroborated, and unsupported by proper note-taking.

Applying the Waterfield, Debot, and Grant frameworks, the court found breaches of ss. 9 and 8 of the Charter and concluded the subsequent search and strip search flowed from an unlawful detention.

The seized evidence was excluded under s. 24(2), and the court found it unnecessary to address the requested stay relating to the strip search.

The accused was tried on multiple fraud-related charges arising from the operation of a paramedical clinic and the submission of false insurance claims for treatments not provided.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as wholly unreliable, accepted the evidence of former patients and insurer records, and found that the Crown proved a large-scale scheme involving false billing, forged attendance and claim forms, and false Small Claims Court proceedings.

The court also found the accused held herself out as a qualified naturopath and massage therapist despite lacking the required Ontario registration.

A conviction was entered on seven of eight counts, with an acquittal on the Manulife count because no evidence was called.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking court approval of a settlement in a personal injury action involving a minor plaintiff arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The settlement resolved claims against several municipal defendants responsible for roadway maintenance and resulted in dismissal of the action, including related third party claims.

Third parties opposed the settlement on the basis that they wished the municipality to remain in the litigation, but the court held they had previously chosen not to advance a third party claim and had provided no sufficient basis to reject the settlement.

After reviewing the supporting materials and affidavits, the court concluded the settlement was reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff.

The settlement was therefore approved and the action dismissed as against the settling parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for substitute service of a statement of claim and an extension of time for service under Rules 16.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action arose from a fatal pedestrian motor vehicle accident, but the defendants had not been served within the required six‑month period after issuance of the claim.

The court found the plaintiffs had made minimal efforts to locate and serve the defendants and had not demonstrated due diligence.

Applying the principles in Chiarelli v. Weins and considering prejudice arising from the delay, the court held that both presumed and actual prejudice existed, including the loss of key witnesses and impaired ability to pursue claims against other potentially liable parties.

The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The motion for substitute service and extension of time was therefore dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect an appeal of a small claims court settlement agreement.

The appellant argued she did not understand the agreement due to a language barrier and lack of an interpreter.

Despite a substantial delay of up to one year, primarily caused by her former counsel, the court found her explanation reasonable.

The court granted the extension, noting the serious consideration required when a self-represented person enters an agreement without a needed interpreter.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the stabbing death of her intimate partner.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted to a sentence of six years imprisonment.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it appropriate given the circumstances.

The offence occurred in a domestic context, which was significantly aggravating.

However, the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, substantial rehabilitation efforts including four years of sobriety, and strong family support were mitigating factors.

The court imposed a six-year sentence with credit for time served on a 1.5:1 basis, resulting in approximately five years and one month remaining to be served.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death arising from a motor vehicle collision on October 31, 2008, in which two passengers died.

The defence brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that proceeding to trial would violate the accused's right to security of the person due to catastrophic physical injuries and severe psychological trauma.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the charges and public interest in prosecution.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered irreparable harm to her health and could not meaningfully participate in her own defence.

The accused was charged with residential break and enter and possession of stolen property.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial proceeded over three days.

The Crown called five witnesses and the defence called one witness (the accused's mother).

The court found the accused guilty of break and enter based on circumstantial evidence including his presence near the property at the time of the offence, possession of tools consistent with break and enter, and possession of stolen items identified by the victim.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession of stolen property as the Crown failed to provide evidence regarding the stolen cell phones particularized in the information.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device on December 12, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on two police officers with significantly divergent observations regarding the accused's sobriety and the sobriety of a female passenger.

The trial judge found material inconsistencies between the officers' evidence, particularly regarding whether alcohol was detected on the accused's breath and whether the female passenger was impaired.

These inconsistencies created reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the investigation.

The accused was acquitted.