Tom Galligan

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs to the Lowe's defendants at $114,091.83 and to the Windsor Police Service (WPS) defendants at $91,841.47, on a joint and several basis.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments of impecuniosity and public interest litigation, finding they failed to provide robust financial disclosure and that their claims were primarily private in nature despite involving Charter rights.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and that the costs sought were reasonable given the complexity and duration of the action, and the WPS defendants' offer to settle.

On summary judgment motions by police defendants and retail defendants arising from arrests connected to a fraudulent credit-card retail pickup scheme, the court dismissed the action against all moving parties.

The court held that claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and related Charter breaches were discovered on arrest and were statute-barred, and further held that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for a warrantless arrest.

The negligent investigation claims against police failed because the record did not show a breach of the standard of care and no expert evidence was adduced where such evidence was required.

The negligent investigation claims against the retail defendants also failed because no duty of care was recognized on the facts under the Anns/Cooper framework, and in any event no breach of any applicable standard was established.

Derivative family claims and related claims for nervous shock were also dismissed.