D. Thompson

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed their appeal of an interim order for payment out of court.

The single judge had quashed the appeal on the basis that the underlying order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The panel agreed that the underlying order, which directed an interim payment out of funds held in court pending the final determination of a shareholder dispute, did not finally dispose of the moving parties' rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in an action alleging excessive force by police officers.

The plaintiff argued that because the Woodstock Police Services Board is funded by the municipality, the action constitutes relief against a municipality, which precludes a jury trial under section 108(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Police Services Board maintains independence from the municipality and that an action against the Board is not equivalent to an action against the municipality.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

On Rule 21 motions, the court considered whether parents and a sibling could maintain negligence claims arising from a child protection and police investigation into allegations that one child sexually assaulted another.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the parents’ negligence claim against the child protection agency failed, distinguishing authorities that concerned children in care and emphasizing the absence of an adversarial child protection proceeding, the lack of conflicting statutory duties on the pleaded facts, and the absence of an alternative remedy.

The court also held that bad faith was sufficiently pleaded against the child protection worker to avoid statutory immunity under s. 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

However, the court struck the claims by the parents and sibling against the police defendants, finding no sufficiently close and direct relationship at the proximity stage of the Anns analysis.