Joël Dubois

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the defendant, a lawyer who formerly represented the other defendants, as a witness before the hearing of the defendants' pending motion for costs.

The plaintiff sought to question the defendant regarding the timing and quantum of his legal account, which was submitted as evidence in the costs motion.

The court granted the motion, finding the evidence relevant and concluding that the defendants failed to prove the examination would be an abuse of process.

Following the discontinuance of the action, the defendants brought a motion for costs.

In response, the plaintiff filed an affidavit containing correspondence regarding settlement offers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike these paragraphs, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that under Rule 57.01(1), written offers to settle are explicitly contemplated as admissible and relevant factors to be considered on a motion for costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Brockville Police Service Board and Michael Grant.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal converted the upcoming hearing into a preliminary hearing to address the issue of delay and directed the parties to provide submissions and medical evidence regarding whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The moving party, a professional association, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process or for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, a former member of the association, sued for defamation, conspiracy, and breach of privacy arising from the association's publication of a notice of hearing that included his own complaint against co-workers.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the association's unappealed discipline decision.

Furthermore, the court held that the defamation and privacy claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the association was protected by statutory immunity and absolute privilege.

The plaintiffs sought continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the defendant’s assets in a civil action alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from more than $1.6 million paid over thirteen years for alternative therapy.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, noting that the payments were voluntarily made for services provided by an astrologist and medium whose credentials were not misrepresented.

The court accepted an undertaking that the net proceeds from the defendant’s Quebec residence would be held in trust pending further order.

The Mareva injunction was therefore not continued except for the confidentiality provisions.

The appellant police officer appealed two penalty decisions ordering her dismissal from the police service.

The first penalty arose from findings of breach of confidence and discreditable conduct for disclosing confidential accident locations to a tow truck operator and offering to help withdraw a traffic ticket.

The second penalty arose from a finding of deceit for lying to investigators during a compelled interview regarding the first matter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld both dismissal penalties, finding that the hearing officers properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the officer's short employment history, prior discipline, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision acquitting a police officer of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and insubordination.

The officer had arrested the appellant for allegedly breaching release conditions and conducted a strip search behind a convenience store.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made significant errors of law and fact, failed to provide adequate reasons, and ignored material evidence.

The Commission revoked the acquittals and substituted findings of guilt on both charges, concluding the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and the strip search violated police policy.