Margaret A. Hoy

This case concerns a civil action brought by the plaintiffs against the Niagara Regional Police Service and individual officers for alleged negligence, assault, and breaches of their Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant.

The police conducted a dynamic entry into the plaintiffs' home, where their son, suspected of drug dealing and firearm possession, resided.

The plaintiffs claimed psychological injuries, property damage, and mistreatment during their detention.

The court found the plaintiffs' testimony lacked credibility and preferred the defendants' expert psychiatric evidence.

It concluded that the police acted reasonably and within their duties, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for lack of compensable damage, absence of a causal connection to a breach of the standard of care, and no proven serious psychiatric injury.

This motion concerned the applicant's request for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization.

The court granted most of the production orders, including the respondent's 2020 T1 tax return, TD bank summary statements, Sun Life share valuation at separation, and most documents requested by the applicant's forensic accountant.

However, the motion for an advance on equalization was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity of funds and the applicant's inability to cover the costs.

The court heavily criticized both parties for non-compliance with electronic filing requirements, practice directions, and proper presentation of evidence, ultimately ordering no costs due to divided success and non-compliance.

The defendants, Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) and Stephen Tan, brought a motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing that a signed Liability Waiver released them from liability.

The plaintiff alleged faulty equipment, inadequate investigation, careless removal of a GPS ankle bracelet, and misleading information provided to police, leading to his re-arrest for breach of recognizance.

The court found the Waiver valid and binding but determined that significant factual issues remained regarding the cause of damage to the ankle bracelet and whether the defendants provided forthright information to police.

The court concluded that these issues, including credibility assessments and expert report scrutiny, required a trial and could not be fairly resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to unseal a search warrant and to compel the defendants to provide answers to questions refused during examination for discovery.

The court denied leave for further discovery due to a five-year delay in seeking answers and the nature of the questions, which would contravene a sealing order and potentially identify a confidential informant.

The application to unseal the search warrant was quashed because it was not brought before the proper court as stipulated by s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code, as the civil action for damages was not considered a proceeding "arising out of the investigation."

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the defendant achieved partial success on minor claims but failed on the two main claims.

Both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, reduced to reflect the defendant's minor successes.

The court found that it was not unreasonable for the defendant to have brought the summary judgment motion.

The defendant, Robert Mills, moved for partial summary judgment and leave to amend his statement of defence to plead the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract and tort related to the purchase of residences and a common recreational complex.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on claims for breach of privacy, breach of contract regarding monthly fees for club access, and deficiencies in construction.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for summary judgment on claims related to the delay in building the clubhouse and misrepresentation about golf course proximity/view, finding these issues required a trial due to intertwined facts and the need to potentially pierce the corporate veil.

Leave to amend the statement of defence to plead limitation periods for breach of contract and golf course representations was also denied.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal of a trial judgment in an employment law matter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's costs award of $82,600 to the respondent, arguing for either no costs or a reduced amount of $20,000.

The respondent sought to maintain the trial judge's award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award to $40,000, considering that while the respondent succeeded on the constructive dismissal claim, the trial was significantly lengthened by unsuccessful claims and the respondent failed to proceed under the simplified procedure despite being eligible to do so after other claims were struck out.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being arrested and detained for 78 days on charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

Following a 9-day trial, the court found that while one officer breached the standard of care by failing to review a video interview, this omission did not cause the plaintiff's continued incarceration.

The court concluded the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for constructive dismissal in the amount of $75,723.64, punitive damages of $100,000, and costs of $82,600.

The respondent, a Security Shift Supervisor at a casino, was suspended without pay after being investigated for alleged theft from the casino's lost and found facilities.

The Court of Appeal found that while the suspension itself was justified, the suspension without pay was not reasonably justified at the time it was imposed.

The court determined that the appropriate notice period was seven months, not the 17 months the trial judge had awarded.

The court also set aside the punitive damages award, finding that the trial judge failed to properly analyze whether compensatory damages were inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and condemnation.

The appellants sought to set aside an order requiring them to pay security for costs of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court imposed restrictions on future motions by the appellants, requiring leave of a judge and satisfaction of all outstanding costs orders before any further motions could be brought.

The decision reflects the court's response to a prolonged pattern of litigation among nine siblings over their late father's estate, which had resulted in multiple prior appellate decisions, contempt findings, and substantial unpaid costs orders.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest on October 14, 2006.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred in finding he was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive, and that the arrest was without cause.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect of his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and his legal conclusions regarding the elements of causing a disturbance were correct.

The court also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude a finding of unlawful arrest in civil proceedings due to different parties and burdens of proof.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding an outstanding Small Claims Court judgment.

The parties had agreed to settle for $24,000, but the defendant refused to sign the plaintiff's standard Minutes of Settlement because they did not include a separate full and final release.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement implied a release and that a separate full and final release was not appropriate as the settlement was strictly limited to the judgment debt.

The court held that the defendant repudiated the settlement by refusing to sign the documents and pay the funds, and dismissed the motion.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a security for costs order made by Gillese J.A. The order required each moving party to post $15,000 as security for costs in their appeal from a lower court decision.

The motion was brought almost seven months after the deadline prescribed by Rule 61.16(6), which requires service and filing within four days of the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had formed a bona fide intention to challenge the order within the required timeframe, the lack of merit in the proposed motion and significant prejudice to the respondent outweighed these factors.

The court emphasized the respondent's history of unpaid costs orders and the vexatious nature of the litigation.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was successful, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $1,588.60.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant regarding the defendant's appeal of a Deputy Judge's decision.

The court applied Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assessing whether there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and whether the defendant had insufficient assets in Ontario.

Finding that the appeal had minimal prospect of success and that there was no evidence of sufficient assets to pay costs, the court ordered the defendant to pay $8,000 into court as security for costs.

The plaintiff, Richelle Milloy, was the successful party in a 10-day trial and sought partial indemnity costs of $79,517.59.

The defendant, Complex Services Inc., argued that the plaintiff recovered less than one-third of the claimed damages and that costs should be proportionate to the award, proposing $20,000 plus disbursements and HST (approx. $26,134).

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher and Zesta Engineering, noted the plaintiff's bill lacked detail, the case was of average complexity, and the litigation, initially ordinary procedure, continued under simplified procedure with a recovery of $32,137.18.

The court also discounted costs for a plaintiff's motion at trial and found the 210 hours spent on litigation excessive given the recovery.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $30,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a former table games dealer, sued for wrongful dismissal after her employment was terminated due to a permanent shoulder injury.

The defendant employer argued frustration of contract, having provided modified duties for over two years.

The court found that the employer's failure to offer alternative suitable positions within the organization, despite the employee's qualifications and exemplary record, constituted 'self-induced frustration' and prevented the employer from relying on the doctrine of frustration of contract.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for wrongful dismissal based on common-law reasonable notice.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $28,503.25.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $57,131.45, while the defendants argued for no costs due to the plaintiff's failure to use the simplified procedure under Rule 76, despite the judgment being under $100,000.

The court found it was not reasonable for the action to proceed under ordinary procedure but declined to deny all costs.

Applying the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, and considering factors like proportionality, the modest damages, and inefficiencies, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $15,000, all inclusive, for the plaintiff.

This costs judgment followed a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendants, represented by salaried counsel, sought costs of $68,093.99.

The court considered the plaintiff's modest financial circumstances, the complexity of the issues, and the plaintiff's conduct, which included disclosure problems and "wild" settlement offers that significantly exceeded the Simplified Rules' limits.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, and acknowledging the defendants' reasonable hourly rates and disbursements, the court fixed costs at $35,000, inclusive of disbursements.

This decision balanced the need for indemnification of the successful party with the unsuccessful litigant's ability to pay and access to justice concerns.

A citizen reported criminal activity by neighbours' sons to police, claiming she was promised confidentiality.

The police officer did not disclose that the interview was being videotaped.

The neighbours' sons were arrested, and the citizen's identity and videotaped interview were included in Crown disclosure.

The citizen was subsequently harassed and threatened by the neighbours, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder and relocation.

The trial judge found the police liable for breach of confidence and awarded general damages of $345,000, plus Family Law Act damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a promise of confidentiality, that necessary elements for the claim were not established, and that damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and damage award.