Martha Cook

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim and dismiss the action.

The plaintiff, a therapeutic counsellor, had previously sued the defendants in Small Claims Court and initiated various complaints regarding a fee-splitting and supervision arrangement.

The court found that the current action was an attempt to relitigate claims that had already been dismissed or settled, constituting an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the claims were statute-barred as they were discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court dismissed all claims except for a defamation claim against one defendant, which was struck for lack of particularity but with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the remaining defendant's statement of defence for failing to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The defendant had ignored the timetable while pursuing an appeal of the order, without seeking a stay.

The court found the defendant's deliberate non-compliance unacceptable but declined to strike the defence, noting the plaintiffs' own six-year delay in moving the action forward.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and an amended timetable was ordered.

The plaintiff in a defamation action sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add allegations of further defamatory statements by the existing defendant and to add a psychiatrist as a new defendant for negligence and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court denied leave to add the new defamation allegations against the existing defendant, finding them barred by the two-year limitation period and lacking sufficient particulars.

However, the court granted leave to add the claims against the psychiatrist, finding that although the negligence claim based on a third-party duty of care was novel, it was not plain and obvious that it would fail.

The court also allowed the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim to proceed.

Property owners challenged a municipal heritage designation by-law enacted under the Ontario Heritage Act designating their commercial property and “all original interior features.” They argued the by-law was void due to improper notice and alternatively sought severance of certain interior items from the designation.

The court held that although notice by mail contained a minor postal code error and did not strictly comply with the statutory notice provision, the owners had actual notice of the municipality’s intention to designate the property.

The defect rendered the by-law potentially voidable but not void ab initio, and the one‑year limitation period for quashing municipal by-laws barred the application.

The court further held that the disputed clock, cabinets, counters, showcases, and mirrors were fixtures forming part of the real property and could lawfully be included in the heritage designation.