Kim Twohig

The defendants brought motions to compel answers to refusals and undertakings given during the plaintiff’s examination for discovery in a civil action alleging negligent investigation, defamation, abuse of statutory powers, breach of fiduciary duty, and mental distress arising from an erroneous police press release naming the plaintiff in relation to child pornography charges.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of various discovery questions concerning related defamation actions, settlement amounts, the plaintiff’s health and reputation, his relationship with a convicted roommate, and mitigation of damages.

The court held that certain questions relating to settlements in related actions and mitigation were relevant and should be answered, while many others were properly refused as irrelevant or disproportionate.

The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery to answer specific questions and to satisfy outstanding undertakings within 60 days.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The plaintiff, whose murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after a reference, brought a civil action against the Crown and police alleging negligence and wrongdoing related to an undisclosed alibi.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding that it sought to relitigate factual findings already made by the Court of Appeal regarding the absence of wrongdoing by the Crown and police.

The court also held that, alternatively, a permanent stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act was warranted due to the impossibility of a fair trial given the passage of over 40 years, faded memories, and lost evidence.

The defendants, Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motions for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The underlying action involved a fatal collision following a high-speed chase by Akwesasne Police Service officers, with the plaintiffs alleging vicarious and direct liability against the government defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision conflicted with established appellate authorities on the tests for summary judgment, amending pleadings, and establishing a private law duty of care, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The plaintiff corporation sued the provincial government for $2.25 billion after the government imposed a moratorium on offshore wind farm development in Lake Ontario.

The government moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the moratorium constituted a core policy decision grounded in public policy considerations and therefore could not ground liability in tort.

Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, expropriation, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, and intentional infliction of economic harm were all found to be inadequately pleaded or legally unsustainable.

The statement of claim was struck and the action dismissed without leave to amend.