Lorne Michael Honickman

The defendant, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground that it was barred by a limitation period.

The plaintiffs, police officers, alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office by Crown counsel.

The court, applying the principles from Beardsley v. Ontario Provincial Police, found that the limitation period issue involved legal and factual complexities, including the discoverability of a potentially novel claim, and therefore should not be determined at a preliminary stage before pleadings were closed.

The preliminary question was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the motion to dismiss on this ground was denied.

This judgment addresses the determination of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiffs' successful request for a trial adjournment.

The court defined "costs thrown away" as wasted trial preparation expenses that would need to be repeated.

It applied an "intuitive" discount to the defendants' claimed costs, distinguishing between truly wasted efforts and preparation that would retain value for a future trial.

The court also deferred the assessment of costs related to the adjournment motion itself until after the trial, when the full context of disclosure issues would be clearer.

The defendants were awarded $6,225.33 in costs thrown away.

HSBC Bank Canada moved to dismiss Panther Film Services Inc.'s action for delay, which had been outstanding for 12 years.

Panther brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court applied the three-part test for dismissal for delay: inordinate, inexcusable, and substantial risk to a fair trial.

While the delay was inordinate and inexcusable (Panther's arguments regarding shared delay and third-party settlement negotiations were rejected), the court found that Panther successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by demonstrating that documentary evidence was preserved and key witnesses were available, making it primarily a documents case.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and the cross-motion to restore was granted, with an order for further security for costs against Panther.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add three new defendants and a new cause of action for conspiracy to injure, nearly four years after the incident.

The defendants opposed, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff met the low evidentiary burden to show reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged conspiracy, which is secretive by nature.

The court also found the proposed pleading contained all necessary elements for a conspiracy claim.

The defendants were granted leave to plead a limitations defence.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action after a seven-day trial, the defendants sought costs of approximately $88,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the Rule 49 offer defective as it did not specify costs, rejecting the claim for substantial indemnity.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against a hotel and its night manager arising from statements recorded in an internal “Midnight Log” describing the plaintiff as intoxicated and belligerent during a dispute at the hotel’s front desk.

The court held that the statements were capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory.

However, the court found the substance of the account was substantially true except for the characterization that the plaintiff was intoxicated.

The court further held that the preparation and internal circulation of the log and its use in an employee discipline meeting were made on occasions of qualified privilege, and there was no proof of malice.

As a result, the defamation claim failed, although the court indicated that damages would have been assessed at $25,000 if liability had been established.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging trespass, conversion, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches after OSPCA agents removed his livestock and laid charges under the OSPCA Act.

The defendants brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge and beliefs about the legality of OSPCA powers and investigative practices.

The court held that questions seeking the plaintiff’s personal legal opinions on contested legal issues were irrelevant where counsel had already articulated the legal positions.

The defendants’ motion was dismissed.

On the plaintiff’s cross‑motion, the court granted leave to amend pleadings and ordered production of certain OSPCA training materials, policies, tariff information, and other information relevant to alleged warrantless entries and potential Charter remedies, while dismissing requests deemed irrelevant.

The appellant challenged the validity of a municipal election in Ward 9 of the City of Toronto, arguing that 275 Voters' List Change Request Forms (VLCRFs) were invalid because they lacked an election official's signature.

The application judge declared the election invalid, but the Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the substantive approach from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Opitz.

The Court held that the omission of the election official's signature was a procedural irregularity that did not compromise the voters' underlying entitlement to vote, and therefore did not affect the result of the election.

The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.

Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.

Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.

In an appeal from Ontario, the appellants sought a stay of a defamation action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The Court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection because the alleged tort was published in Ontario and the plaintiff pleaded publication and reputational harm in that forum.

The Court also held that the appellants failed to show Quebec was clearly more appropriate, giving deference to the motion judge’s discretionary forum analysis.

The Court discussed concerns about forum shopping and noted, without deciding, that choice-of-law rules in multijurisdictional defamation may warrant future refinement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal by the municipality and elected candidates that upheld the validity of a municipal election, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful challenging candidates were not entitled to have their costs paid by the municipality, despite claiming public interest litigant status.

However, the court ordered the municipality to pay the partial indemnity costs of the successful elected candidates, recognizing they were blameless parties drawn into expensive litigation due to mistakes made by municipal election officials.

The court also ordered one of the challenging candidates to pay the costs of a motion he unreasonably opposed.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring the 2010 municipal elections for Ward 9 City Councillor and Ward 4 TDSB Trustee invalid due to election officials failing to sign Voters List Change Request Forms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the failure to sign the forms was an irregularity, it did not affect the result of the elections because the vast majority of the voters had signed declarations confirming their eligibility to vote.

The Court held that the elections were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Municipal Elections Act and set aside the order for by-elections.

The appellant applied for a registration certificate for his Armi Jager AP80 firearm, which was refused by the Registrar of Firearms on the basis that it is a prohibited firearm.

The Ontario Court of Justice reversed the Registrar's decision, finding that the AP80 was not a variant of the AK-47.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the Attorney General's appeal and restored the Registrar's refusal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the Ontario Court of Justice failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review to the Registrar's decision.

The Court of Appeal further held that the AP80 is the same weapon as the AK-22, which is expressly declared by regulation to be a variant of the AK-47, and is therefore a prohibited firearm.

During an appeal, an added party sought to raise a Charter challenge to provisions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional question, noting that the evidentiary record was woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, the order adding the party explicitly stated that it was not to unduly widen the scope of the appeal.

The court held that a Charter application could be brought at any time on a proper record, but it would not be heard in the current appeal nor referred back to the motions judge.

The moving party sought costs of her successful motion to intervene as a party in an appeal.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be determined by the panel hearing the appeal, alleging that the moving party violated the scope of the permitted intervention by filing prohibited evidence.

The court ordered that the costs of the motion to intervene be determined by the panel hearing the appeal, as they were best positioned to assess compliance with the intervention conditions.

During an appeal regarding a municipal election, the intervenor/appellant sought to introduce affidavit material detailing after-the-fact efforts to determine voter eligibility through canvassing and signed forms.

The Divisional Court ruled the evidence inadmissible, citing concerns over its hearsay nature and lack of reliability based on how it was compiled.

Consequently, the responding affidavit material was also excluded.

Three parties brought motions to intervene in appeals from a judgment declaring two municipal elections invalid.

The successful candidate in one ward sought to be added as a party, a voter whose vote was discounted sought to intervene as a friend of the court, and a neighbouring municipality sought to intervene as a friend of the court.

The court granted all three motions, finding that the successful candidate had a direct interest, the voter offered a unique perspective on the voting process, and the neighbouring municipality could provide useful context on the impact of the lower court's decision on municipal elections generally.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to decline jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between the Ontario court and the claim, satisfying the test for jurisdiction simpliciter under both Muscutt and Van Breda.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the forum non conveniens analysis, noting that even if recent Supreme Court jurisprudence attenuated the juridical advantage point, there were sufficient other bases to support the decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan and brought an action in Ontario against the Michigan driver and owner, an unidentified driver, and her own Ontario insurer.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing Michigan was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by failing to give weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum and by not considering the claim as a whole, including the necessary claim against the Ontario insurer.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside, allowing the action to proceed in Ontario to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance due to the exceptional factual circumstances of the case.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, as there was no good reason to believe the plaintiff's action was frivolous and vexatious.

Given the mixed results, no costs were awarded.