Margaret A. Hoy

The plaintiff sued the police service, the police services board, the chief of police, and three uniformed officers for battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from a welfare check in the early morning hours of November 23, 2014.

Officers responded to a 911 call from a woman in the plaintiff's bathroom and, after the plaintiff pushed an officer, arrested him and used force to bring him under control.

The court found the plaintiff not to be a credible witness, identifying numerous inconsistencies between his testimony, his prior statements, and the objective medical evidence.

The court accepted the officers' account that the plaintiff initiated physical contact, that only necessary force was used in effecting the arrest, and that the officers entered lawfully.

Judgment was granted to the defendants.

This case concerns a civil action brought by the plaintiffs against the Niagara Regional Police Service and individual officers for alleged negligence, assault, and breaches of their Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant.

The police conducted a dynamic entry into the plaintiffs' home, where their son, suspected of drug dealing and firearm possession, resided.

The plaintiffs claimed psychological injuries, property damage, and mistreatment during their detention.

The court found the plaintiffs' testimony lacked credibility and preferred the defendants' expert psychiatric evidence.

It concluded that the police acted reasonably and within their duties, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for lack of compensable damage, absence of a causal connection to a breach of the standard of care, and no proven serious psychiatric injury.

This motion concerned the applicant's request for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization.

The court granted most of the production orders, including the respondent's 2020 T1 tax return, TD bank summary statements, Sun Life share valuation at separation, and most documents requested by the applicant's forensic accountant.

However, the motion for an advance on equalization was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity of funds and the applicant's inability to cover the costs.

The court heavily criticized both parties for non-compliance with electronic filing requirements, practice directions, and proper presentation of evidence, ultimately ordering no costs due to divided success and non-compliance.

The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.

The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.

The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.

The defendants, Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) and Stephen Tan, brought a motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing that a signed Liability Waiver released them from liability.

The plaintiff alleged faulty equipment, inadequate investigation, careless removal of a GPS ankle bracelet, and misleading information provided to police, leading to his re-arrest for breach of recognizance.

The court found the Waiver valid and binding but determined that significant factual issues remained regarding the cause of damage to the ankle bracelet and whether the defendants provided forthright information to police.

The court concluded that these issues, including credibility assessments and expert report scrutiny, required a trial and could not be fairly resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of D.L. Edwards J. dated February 4, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $2,700 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 21, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion for production of documents.

The court noted that the defendants had to bring the motion to obtain basic, relevant, and proportionate disclosure to which they were entitled, including documents the plaintiff had undertaken to provide.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion for discovery to compel the plaintiff to produce medical, employment, and service dog records that were refused at his examination for discovery.

The plaintiff is suing the police for alleged physical and mental harm, loss of income, and loss of opportunity to train his dog as a service animal.

The court found the requested records relevant to damages and causation, and ordered the plaintiff to produce the records or provide proof of best efforts to obtain them.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused presented new alibi evidence suggesting he was in another city at the time of one of the alleged offences.

However, the court noted that if the alibi were true, the accused was simultaneously in breach of two recognizances.

The court found that the impact of the new evidence on the probability of conviction was balanced by its negative impact on the court's ability to trust the accused to comply with release terms.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the revocation of its Class 1 Transfer Service licence.

The revocation followed an incident where the appellant directed a contractor to transport human remains in an inappropriate and undignified manner.

The tribunal found that the appellant's day-to-day operations were managed by an unlicenced individual, contrary to regulations, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from an arrest at a restaurant-bar, alleging assault, wrongful arrest, and breach of the Charter following a dispute over a child seated at the bar.

After finding that the plaintiff loudly used profane language, disturbed patrons and staff, refused repeated requests to leave, and physically confronted an off-duty police officer, the court held that the officers had objectively and subjectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for causing a disturbance and trespass.

The court rejected the plaintiff's account of a prolonged beating, accepted the defence evidence that the plaintiff resisted handcuffing, and held that the force used, including a distracting blow during the struggle, was reasonable and authorized by law.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to unseal a search warrant and to compel the defendants to provide answers to questions refused during examination for discovery.

The court denied leave for further discovery due to a five-year delay in seeking answers and the nature of the questions, which would contravene a sealing order and potentially identify a confidential informant.

The application to unseal the search warrant was quashed because it was not brought before the proper court as stipulated by s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code, as the civil action for damages was not considered a proceeding "arising out of the investigation."

Following a 16-day jury trial where the plaintiff's claim against the police defendants was dismissed, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $296,602.70 based on an offer to settle and allegations of intentional torts against an officer.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the offer did not trigger such consequences and the allegations did not warrant them.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $127,000 all-inclusive, after deductions for travel time and a second counsel.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the defendant achieved partial success on minor claims but failed on the two main claims.

Both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, reduced to reflect the defendant's minor successes.

The court found that it was not unreasonable for the defendant to have brought the summary judgment motion.

The defendant, Robert Mills, moved for partial summary judgment and leave to amend his statement of defence to plead the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract and tort related to the purchase of residences and a common recreational complex.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on claims for breach of privacy, breach of contract regarding monthly fees for club access, and deficiencies in construction.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for summary judgment on claims related to the delay in building the clubhouse and misrepresentation about golf course proximity/view, finding these issues required a trial due to intertwined facts and the need to potentially pierce the corporate veil.

Leave to amend the statement of defence to plead limitation periods for breach of contract and golf course representations was also denied.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal of a trial judgment in an employment law matter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's costs award of $82,600 to the respondent, arguing for either no costs or a reduced amount of $20,000.

The respondent sought to maintain the trial judge's award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award to $40,000, considering that while the respondent succeeded on the constructive dismissal claim, the trial was significantly lengthened by unsuccessful claims and the respondent failed to proceed under the simplified procedure despite being eligible to do so after other claims were struck out.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being arrested and detained for 78 days on charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

Following a 9-day trial, the court found that while one officer breached the standard of care by failing to review a video interview, this omission did not cause the plaintiff's continued incarceration.

The court concluded the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for constructive dismissal in the amount of $75,723.64, punitive damages of $100,000, and costs of $82,600.

The respondent, a Security Shift Supervisor at a casino, was suspended without pay after being investigated for alleged theft from the casino's lost and found facilities.

The Court of Appeal found that while the suspension itself was justified, the suspension without pay was not reasonably justified at the time it was imposed.

The court determined that the appropriate notice period was seven months, not the 17 months the trial judge had awarded.

The court also set aside the punitive damages award, finding that the trial judge failed to properly analyze whether compensatory damages were inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and condemnation.