Lisa E. Hamilton

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, which alleged various torts including breach of confidence and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from an employee's improper access to a child's file at a clinic.

The plaintiff, father of the children, brought the claim on his own behalf, not as a litigation guardian or under the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff failed to respond to a request to admit, did not comply with court-ordered timetables for filing materials, and made last-minute attempts to amend his claim and seek an adjournment, which were denied due to non-compliance and the need for orderly administration of justice.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, relying on the deemed admissions and the defendants' evidence.

The claims were dismissed as the plaintiff had no contractual relationship with the defendants, no personal confidential information was disseminated, and no provable injury was demonstrated.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The moving party, a women's shelter, brought a motion to strike the responding party's negligence claim on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The deceased was sexually assaulted on the shelter's premises by a third party and later murdered in an unrelated incident.

The court held that the recent amendments to the Limitations Act, 2002, which eliminated limitation periods for proceedings based on sexual assault, applied to negligence claims against third parties who owed a duty of care to the victim.

The court found sufficient proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the motion to strike.

The defendant Gregory Carter brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against him, primarily relying on expert witness immunity.

The plaintiff Rory Sheehan had sued Carter for a report prepared for his ex-wife's family law proceedings, alleging issues with Carter's qualifications as a Psychological Associate and his out-of-court statements regarding his credentials.

The court found that Carter's role as an expert witness, including his report and related out-of-court communications about his qualifications, fell within the scope of absolute expert witness immunity.

The court also noted serious causation and damages issues for the plaintiff.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Gregory Carter.