4 total
Appeal allowed and negligent investigation claim dismissed as police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.
The plaintiff sued several police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation following his arrest for break and enter and breach of recognizance in the context of a domestic dispute.
The trial judge found two officers and the Board liable and awarded damages.
The defendants appealed.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on a legal test that was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Applying the correct standard, the court held that the police acted reasonably based on the information available to them and had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests.
The action was dismissed.
Delay motion failed; limited discovery relief granted to the plaintiff.
In a shareholder and oppression dispute arising from a failed business relationship, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay and alternatively sought further discovery relief, while the plaintiff moved to compel answers to discovery refusals.
The court held that the relevant period of delay was approximately two years, not five, and that although prejudice was presumed because the limitation period had expired, the presumption was rebutted and actual prejudice was not proven.
The court also rejected an estoppel argument based on opposing counsel's silence.
The dismissal motion was refused, the plaintiff obtained limited relief on specified refusals and production, and the defendants' cross-motion for further answers and a fresh examination was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; motion judge properly varied consent stay order due to appellants' bad faith in mediation.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to vary a consent stay order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had the power to vary the order under Rule 59.06 due to changed circumstances.
The court upheld the finding that the appellants acted in bad faith during the arbitration and mediation process, precluding them from relying on the procedural protections of those provisions.
Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.
Insurer's notice of benefit reduction was not a proper refusal; limitation period did not commence.
The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and received weekly income benefits.
The insurer reduced the benefits after the applicant began receiving CPP disability benefits, and later refused to restore the higher rate following court decisions holding that CPP benefits were not deductible.
The insurer argued the applicant was barred from arbitrating the issue by the two-year limitation period.
The arbitrator found that the insurer's notice of benefit reduction did not constitute a proper refusal to pay, as the applicant had already agreed to a reduction and proposed a repayment method.
Therefore, the limitation period had not commenced, and the applicant was not time-barred.
The arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's position was based on an honestly-held error rather than bad faith, but awarded interest on overdue amounts and expenses to the applicant.
