Robert Smith

The self-represented plaintiff, acting as litigation guardian for his minor son, brought a motion seeking to waive the requirement under Rule 15.01(1) that a party under disability be represented by a lawyer.

The defendants and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the mandatory requirement for legal representation is designed to protect vulnerable minors and cannot be waived in these circumstances, especially where the litigation guardian is also seeking damages on his own behalf.

The minor plaintiff's claim was stayed until a properly represented litigation guardian is appointed.

The defendants, a children's aid society and its employees, moved to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims arising from a child protection investigation.

The court struck the parents' claims for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter damages with leave to amend, finding the pleadings lacked necessary material facts.

The negligence claims were struck without leave to amend because a children's aid society does not owe a duty of care to parents.

The court also granted a sealing order to protect the privacy interests of the children involved.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The appellants appealed an order granting partial summary judgment that dismissed their action against a party host and the municipality that rented the facility.

The appellant was assaulted by another attendee at the party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable, as there were no prior signs of aggressive behaviour and the incident was sudden.

The court also found no error in granting partial summary judgment, as the claims against the host and municipality could be readily bifurcated from the remaining claim against the assailant.

The plaintiff sued for damages, claiming an equitable life estate or option to purchase a residential property based on an unwritten agreement.

The plaintiff had originally owned the property but lost it to foreclosure, after which he remained as a tenant under successive owners.

The court found the plaintiff's claims to be entirely fabricated and contradicted by documentary evidence, including a lease in which he explicitly released all claims to the property.

The action was dismissed.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeal after missing the deadline set by a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay.

The delay was caused by the suspension of procedural time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent communication issues between co-counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension, finding that the moving parties had a reasonable explanation for the delay, there was no prejudice to the responding parties, and the appeal had arguable merit.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment, arguing they were never served with the statement of claim.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to appear for the motion despite multiple adjournments and personal service on the plaintiff.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the procedural irregularities and prejudice to the defendants warranted setting aside the default judgment, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of previously paid benefits.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

Consequently, the arbitrator proceeded in his absence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant's claim was dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof, and the insurer withdrew its claim for repayment.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.