Margaret A. Hoy

The plaintiff sued the police for negligence, false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at a house party.

The court found that the police officer assaulted the plaintiff without justification, falsely arrested him without reasonable and probable grounds, and maliciously prosecuted him for assaulting a peace officer.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, special damages for the cost of defending the criminal charge, and punitive damages, totaling $28,503.25.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,379.48.

The plaintiff argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be fixed at $1,500.

The court applied Rule 57.01 and the principles from Boucher, noting the motion was of average complexity but required a detailed summary of proceedings.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $6,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against several police officers and the police services board for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and breach of his Charter rights following his arrest for causing a disturbance and assaulting a police officer.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The court found that the plaintiff was severely intoxicated, belligerent, and aggressive on the night in question, and that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, concluding that the arrest and detention were lawful, the investigation was not negligent, and there was no malice or Charter breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim, more than four years after its issuance and six years after her termination, to introduce claims related to medical disability preventing mitigation and a bad faith dismissal.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for an adjournment to cross-examine the defendant's affiant, finding it would not be useful.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was dismissed, as the court found significant prejudice to the defendant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The delay in raising these new issues, particularly the medical disability and bad faith claims, deprived the defendant of a timely opportunity to investigate.

The bad faith claim was also deemed statute-barred.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to consolidate three separate actions.

The court denied leave, finding that the alleged "conflicting decision" was from a lower-level judicial officer (Master) and did not represent a conflict on a matter of principle, but rather an application of the same principles to different facts.

The court emphasized that a conflicting decision for the purpose of leave to appeal must be on a matter of principle and not merely a different factual outcome.

The motion judge's discretionary decision to deny consolidation was found to be amply supported by the evidence, considering the insufficient connection among the transactions and the different stages of the proceedings.

The defendants sought costs for a WSIAT hearing and for the conduct of the action, having previously made an all-inclusive offer to settle for $10,000.

The plaintiffs had significant success on the motion, successfully arguing that the costs of the WSIAT proceeding should not be awarded and achieving a significant reduction in the fees claimed by the defendants.

Finding that success was divided, the court made no order as to costs of the motion.

This motion concerned the defendants' entitlement to costs after the plaintiffs' action was dismissed on consent, as the right of action was removed by s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The defendants sought costs for defending the action and for a related hearing before the Workplace Safety Insurance and Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The court determined that costs related to the WSIAT hearing were not recoverable in the action, consistent with the WSIAT's no-costs regime.

Furthermore, the court significantly reduced the defendants' claimed costs for the action itself, finding that certain steps like examinations for discovery and pretrial attendance were unnecessarily incurred due to the defendants' delay in bringing the WSIAT application and their initial denial of the employment relationship.

The court fixed the party and party costs of the action, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants, at $3,000.00 all inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the full Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigative file in a civil action alleging negligence, assault, and Charter breaches arising from a police use-of-force incident.

The SIU, a non‑party, resisted production of certain civilian and police witness statements that had been obtained under assurances of confidentiality.

The court applied the factors from Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro and emphasized that a moving party must demonstrate both relevance and that proceeding to trial without the documents would be unfair.

The court found the plaintiff had not made reasonable efforts to obtain evidence from available witnesses and could not rely on the SIU investigation as a substitute for civil discovery.

Production of the remaining witness statements was therefore refused.

The defendant home inspector brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granted to the plaintiffs four years prior.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendant for professional negligence and breach of contract regarding a home inspection that failed to disclose severe water damage and rot.

The defendant failed to defend the action, citing severe health issues including a heart attack and rheumatoid arthritis.

Despite the significant delay and procedural non-compliance, the court found an arguable defence on the merits and no genuine prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to prove their case.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment, but imposed strict terms including payment of costs thrown away and payment into court as security.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded non-pecuniary damages, the court determined the issues of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate of 3.0 per cent from the commencement of the action, declining the defendants' request to average the rate or shorten the period due to delay.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no justification for it, and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $175,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs on the basis that the plaintiff resided outside Ontario and had no assets in the province.

The plaintiff alleged an assault by police officers in Ontario but relied on asserted assets in New York State and reciprocal enforcement legislation to resist the motion.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient objective evidence establishing that the foreign assets were appropriate and sufficient to satisfy a potential costs order.

The court also rejected arguments that financial hardship caused by the alleged assault or the Victims’ Bill of Rights precluded the order.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches arising from a police detention following an assault investigation.

The plaintiffs commenced their action more than two years after the incident but argued that the limitation period should be extended under the discoverability rule due to alleged ongoing investigations involving police and a regulatory authority.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence linking later investigations to the incident giving rise to the claim or demonstrating that the claim could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.

Applying the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found the action was commenced out of time.

The defendants’ motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Following an earlier endorsement finding negligence in the prosecution of the action and ending the proceeding against the defendants, the defendants sought costs of $5,535.87.

The court considered the conduct of the plaintiff and counsel, including procedural errors and inadequate explanation for improperly placing the matter on the trial list.

The court also considered settlement correspondence regarding costs exchanged after the earlier endorsement.

While finding the plaintiff’s conduct warranted sanction, the court held the defendants’ request for more than double their earlier settlement proposal was excessive.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the reduced amount of $2,500 inclusive.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was partially successful in obtaining an adjustment to child support based on increased income and a three‑year retroactive period, but failed to obtain the full relief sought and several claimed s. 7 expenses were disallowed due to lack of documentation or improper characterization.

The responding party argued the moving party had largely failed and sought costs or, alternatively, no order as to costs.

The court held the moving party was the successful party overall but reduced costs due to disclosure deficiencies and excessive claims.

Costs of $2,500 inclusive of HST were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order seeking retroactive adjustment of table child support and contribution toward post-secondary and other section 7 expenses.

Applying the principles in D.B.S. regarding retroactive support, the court held that effective notice occurred in March 2011 and, absent blameworthy conduct, retroactive support could only extend three years back to March 2008.

Because one child was no longer a child of the marriage at the time of notice and the motion, retroactive support was limited to the remaining child.

The court calculated retroactive table support arrears and determined reasonable post-secondary education expenses, requiring the child to contribute and allocating the balance proportionally between the parents.

The respondent was ordered to pay arrears of table support and section 7 expenses in instalments.

Following a motion for summary judgment in an employment dispute, the court had dismissed several tort and Charter claims but allowed the claims for constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal to proceed to trial.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs of the motion.

The court held that the motion resulted in mixed success but considered a written offer to settle made under Rule 49 when exercising its discretion under Rule 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the technical cost consequences of Rule 49.10 did not apply to a motion decision, the offer was relevant to costs.

The moving party was awarded partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to settle and certain additional costs relating to adjournments and abandoned motions.

Following the dismissal of an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $85,000.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because the dismissal of the action turned on the plaintiff’s inability to establish a required element of the torts—namely that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favour—rather than any judicial determination that the allegations of malice were baseless.

Although the plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with a court‑ordered timetable for motion materials, the delay caused no prejudice and did not justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for the motion and action together.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $62,240.49 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation after criminal charges against him were withdrawn following his resignation from the police service pursuant to a negotiated resolution with the Crown.

The defendants, including several police officers and the police services board, moved for summary judgment.

The court held that one essential element of both torts is that the criminal proceedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

Because the charges were withdrawn as part of a bona fide resolution agreement requiring the plaintiff’s resignation, the termination was not legally considered to be in his favour.

As a result, the plaintiff could not establish a necessary element of either tort and the action had no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff sought foreclosure on a mortgage securing loans advanced to her spouse and his son, who were registered owners of the mortgaged property.

One defendant disputed executing the mortgage and argued that any enforcement was barred by the limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant had signed the mortgage and that the document was valid and enforceable.

Interpreting the mortgage as collateral security with a fixed term and demand feature, the court held that the limitation period had not expired because demand was made in 2008 prior to maturity of the mortgage term.

The court granted foreclosure and possession of the mortgaged property.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s employment-related claim under the Simplified Procedure, the court determined costs.

The defendant sought costs based on the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including refusal to consent to a pleading amendment, late service of materials, failure to comply with procedural timelines, and conduct that caused adjournment of the trial.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, along with the parties’ settlement offers under Rule 49.

The court found the plaintiff’s conduct lengthened the proceedings and warranted costs above partial indemnity.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendant in the amount of $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.