Jim Smith

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order striking out claims against Maureen Harvey (superintendent of Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre), John Doe, and Jane Doe.

The appellant sought damages for negligent investigation by Ontario Provincial Police officers and breach of duty of care by corrections officials during three years of custody.

The motion judge had struck the claims without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge failed to properly apply the generous reading standard for pleadings and set aside the striking order, allowing the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged that the decision to continue a criminal prosecution against him for fraud was motivated by racial profiling.

The court found that the statement of claim lacked sufficient material facts to support the allegations of malice and improper purpose, and struck the claim.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim, finding that the record suggested there were facts that could be pleaded to support the causes of action.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims arising from his detention at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The court struck the claims against Her Majesty the Queen because the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, rendering the action a nullity.

The claims against the superintendent were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action in her personal capacity, and the Ministry and detention centre were struck as improper parties.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate two related actions was granted.

The plaintiff sued the police and the Crown for injuries sustained when he was bitten by a police dog during his arrest.

The plaintiff had fled from a vehicle and hidden in tall grass, prompting the police to deploy a canine unit.

The dog located the plaintiff and bit him, following its 'bite and hold' training.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to use the dog and that the 'bite and hold' policy was not unreasonable.

The court assessed the plaintiff's general damages at $40,000 in the alternative.

The defendant Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff, who was previously acquitted of fraud charges, sued for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches.

The court found the claim was replete with unnecessary assumptions and failed to plead material facts supporting the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was given 90 days leave to amend the claim.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice which held that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not a suable entity.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law in the motions judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear for his appeal, which had been adjourned multiple times and made peremptory to him.

He requested a further adjournment by email on the morning of the hearing, claiming he thought it was scheduled for the following day.

The Court of Appeal denied the adjournment, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

After reviewing the filed materials, the Court dismissed the appeal on its merits and awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondents.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to exclude the defendant police officers from being present during each other's examinations for discovery.

The Superior Court of Justice determined that the standard of review for this mixed question of fact and law was palpable and overriding error.

Finding that the Master thoroughly reviewed the applicable law and that the plaintiffs' affidavit evidence failed to set out reasons for exclusion, the court found no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution and Charter damages against a police officer and the Crown.

The appellant had been charged with assault causing bodily harm following a prison fight, but the charge was later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge and did not act with malice.

The court also confirmed that mala fides is required to establish a breach of section 7 of the Charter in this context, and that the appellant sued the wrong level of government for his transfer to a maximum-security facility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages arising from charges brought under the Travel Industry Act.

The appellant argued the Registrar was negligent by failing to provide notice and a hearing for its licence renewal under s. 6 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to pay the prescribed fee to apply for renewal.

Consequently, there was no pending application and no obligation to provide notice or a hearing.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to validate the service of a statement of claim in a malicious prosecution action.

The claim was sent by regular mail to the respondent, a private citizen, but no receipt was returned and no personal or substitutional service was effected.

Although the Court of Appeal was satisfied the claim came to the respondent's notice, it found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision under Rule 16.08(a) to dismiss the motion, noting that almost ten years had passed since the events in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant hospital appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition transferring the respondent, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple murders and sexual offences, from a maximum security facility to a medium security facility.

The Review Board concluded that the respondent's risk could be managed in medium security.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Review Board erred in law by focusing solely on risk management and failing to holistically apply all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board failed to consider evidence that the restrictive conditions and lack of vocational therapy at the medium security facility would be detrimental to the respondent's mental health and increase his risk to the public.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against the respondents.

The motion judge had struck the claim on the basis that deputy judges are immune from civil liability, the action constituted a collateral attack and abuse of process, and the claim disclosed no cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a substance abuse problem that rendered him aggressive and violent.

The Court of Appeal found no errors of law and held the Board's decision was reasonable.

The appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, as the evidence pertained to his pending annual review and did not show the Board erred in its original decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's analysis that there was no genuine issue for trial on the question of malice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

The applicant union alleged a sale of business and sought a related employer declaration concerning ISCL and 671860.

ISCL, a construction company, became insolvent and wound up in 1982.

Five and a half years later, the principal's wife incorporated 671860, which the principal managed, to perform construction work.

The Board dismissed the sale of business application as no assets or business were transferred.

However, the Board granted the related employer declaration, finding that despite the 5.5-year gap, the two companies carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil to preserve bargaining rights.