Shivani Chopra

The appellants, over 400 healthcare workers, appealed an order striking their action against the provincial Crown and various healthcare organizations regarding a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

The motion judge struck the claims as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, finding the action was a broad political inquiry rather than a legally cognizable dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Charter did not apply to the private healthcare respondents, the tort claims lacked material facts, and the unionized and privileged hospital staff appellants were required to pursue their claims in other statutory forums.

The defendant hospital brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract, constructive dismissal, negligence, misfeasance in public office, defamation, and human rights violations arising from the suspension and revocation of the physician's hospital privileges following non-compliance with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The court found that most claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board under the Public Hospitals Act and were struck.

The court allowed only the claim for lost wages from October 1, 2021 to the date privileges were suspended, and granted leave to amend regarding defamation and misfeasance in public office claims.

The appellant appealed an order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim against the individual respondents without leave to amend.

The claim alleged constructive dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, discrimination, and breach of Law Society rules following his resignation from the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings lacked material facts, failed to disclose viable causes of action, and could not be saved by further amendment.

The plaintiffs, comprising 473 individuals, brought an action against the Ontario government and 54 non-governmental healthcare entities, challenging COVID-19 vaccination policies and public health measures.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees and physicians whose claims were subject to exclusive statutory regimes.

The court also found the action to be an abuse of process due to its prejudicial scope and frivolous pleadings.

Furthermore, the court held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish, and Charter breaches.

The claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to add a new individual defendant to his claim against his former firm and three individual lawyers.

The existing individual defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim against the individual defendants, finding no viable causes of action for employment claims, defamation, conspiracy, or direct breaches of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Human Rights Code against them.

The plaintiff's motion to add a new defendant was dismissed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim against the firm (WeirFoulds LLP) for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and ESA claims, with human rights allegations tethered to these.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination action, brought a motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and undertakings.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the age and termination status of other senior management team members, finding them relevant to the defendant's pleadings.

However, the court dismissed requests for the recruitment file of a replacement executive director and notes from an in camera board meeting, finding the former irrelevant and the latter protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant had sought to enforce an alleged pre-litigation settlement but failed to establish that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $17,000, noting the strategic risk and power imbalance inherent in motion practice in wrongful dismissal actions.

The appellant employer appealed the dismissal of its motions for summary judgment in three wrongful dismissal actions.

The employer argued that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement prior to the commencement of the actions.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in law by failing to analyze whether the parties had agreed on the essential terms of the settlement.

The Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement on all essential terms, including the payment of legal fees, and intended to resolve the matters.

The appeal was allowed, summary judgment was granted, and the actions were dismissed.