Claudia Scherman

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01, 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, or alternatively strike the claim entirely, alleging it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or vexatious.

The action arose from a long‑standing neighbour dispute involving repeated complaints to police and municipal authorities, and alleged malicious prosecution related to withdrawn or dismissed charges.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test from Supreme Court jurisprudence governing motions to strike, the court held that the pleadings disclosed arguable causes of action including harassment, nuisance, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and malicious prosecution.

The pleaded facts provided sufficient particulars and context to permit the defendants to respond.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

Costs decision following a refusals motion concerning whether documents and information sought on discovery were protected by statutory privilege under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The moving party’s motion to compel answers was largely unsuccessful after the court determined the privilege applied, though the moving party succeeded on a limited issue regarding an investigator’s report and several other matters were resolved consensually.

The successful responding party sought over $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court held the requested amount was excessive given the simplicity of the factual issues and that certain claimed time related to general discovery obligations rather than the motion itself.

Applying proportionality and fairness principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs of $6,000 against the moving party, with no costs payable by co-defendants who had merely responded to the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to compel a private school to answer refused questions on discovery and produce unredacted documents identifying non‑party students and parents who may have information relevant to claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract.

The school resisted disclosure relying on the statutory privilege for Ontario Student Records under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The court found the plaintiff’s narrower interpretation of the privilege persuasive but concluded it was bound by prior authority holding that students’ names and addresses form part of the OSR and are protected by the statutory privilege.

As a result, the court held the information could not be disclosed without consent of the students or parents.

The motion to compel answers and production was therefore dismissed, subject only to disclosure that would not identify non‑party students or their parents.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a noting in default and striking his amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the pleading failed to accord with the rules, failed to plead essential elements, and had no possible chance of success.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to transfer their Small Claims Court action and the plaintiff's Small Claims Court action for unpaid wages into the Superior Court, and to consolidate them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The defendants had strategically commenced their claim in Small Claims Court and could still commence a new action in the Superior Court without prejudice, as no limitation period had expired.