Margaret 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.

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 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.

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.

The defendants brought a motion to strike 34 paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiff's action alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest during a mental health apprehension.

The court found that the impugned paragraphs breached the rules of pleading by including irrelevant facts, pleading evidence, containing scandalous or argumentative statements, and making detailed legal arguments.

The motion was granted, the offending paragraphs were struck, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a personal injury claim for $450,000, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' claimed fees from over $335,000 to $80,000, citing bloated docketing, failure to correct discovery evidence under Rule 31.09, and the late discovery of damaging social media evidence.

Certain disbursements for expert witnesses and investigators were also disallowed as not reasonably necessary.

Following decisions striking the mortgagors' statement of claim, dismissing their motion to amend, and granting summary judgment against them on a mortgage, the successful mortgagees sought costs.

The mortgagors also sought costs, arguing they made a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not meet Rule 49 criteria as the judgment exceeded the offer and the offer did not account for the mortgagors' separate action for damages.

Given the contractual agreement for costs of enforcement and the mortgagors' obstructive litigation tactics, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the New Haven parties and $7,000 to Community Trust Company.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs had sued their mortgagees, mortgage broker, and solicitors, alleging collusion and a criminal interest rate after defaulting on their mortgages.

The court found the statement of claim was inadequately pleaded, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and could not be cured by amendment.

Furthermore, proceeding with the action would constitute an abuse of process as it would re-litigate issues already determined in a related mortgage action.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

Following a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for unpaid litigation loans, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs and an order that the defendant's lawyer be held personally liable for a portion of the costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the matter was not complex and the plaintiff's costs claims were excessive.

The court declined to order costs against the defendant's lawyer personally, despite finding she made careless and misleading statements in her costs submissions, as the high threshold for such an order was not met.

Post-judgment interest was awarded at the contractual rate of 19.5%.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover three litigation loans advanced to the defendant during the course of a personal injury action.

The defendant admitted owing the principal on two loans but disputed the contractual interest rate of 18% compounded monthly and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, lack of disclosure of a conflict of interest, and unconscionability.

The court found the borrower had been fully informed of the loan terms and that the interest rate and structure were standard within the litigation lending industry.

The court rejected the defences, holding that any failure to disclose the lender’s relationship to the borrower’s lawyer caused no compensable loss and did not invalidate the agreements.

Summary judgment was granted enforcing repayment of the loans with interest according to their terms, except that interest was not awarded on one loan where the lender had waived it.

The court reconsidered a prior costs decision following late submissions from the respondent.

The issue was whether costs could be ordered personally against the respondent when the notice of application had requested costs only from the incapable person.

The court held that no prejudice arose because the respondent had ample notice throughout the proceedings that personal costs were in issue, including through settlement offers and prior court appearances where costs were reserved.

Emphasizing the principle that costs follow the result and that family members assisting an incapable person should not bear all litigation risk, the court confirmed that a costs order against the respondent was permissible as ancillary relief.

The earlier costs order was therefore affirmed.

The court reconsidered a prior costs decision after receiving late submissions from counsel for the respondent.

The issue concerned whether the court had jurisdiction to order costs against the respondent when the notice of application had requested costs only against an incapable person.

The court permitted the applicant to file written submissions addressing the jurisdictional issue within 15 days.

The endorsement dealt solely with the procedural reconsideration of the costs determination.

Following a successful guardianship application brought for the benefit of an incapable person, the applicant sought costs against the respondent.

The court noted that the incapable person had no meaningful estate from which costs could be recovered, despite benefiting from the proceeding.

The respondent’s conduct during the litigation, including perjury in cross-examination that risked exposing the incapable person to harm, unnecessarily increased the cost of the proceedings.

Applying the principle that costs follow the event and referencing the recognized range for such proceedings, the court ordered costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $30,500 all inclusive.

Competing applications were brought under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 for guardianship of the person and property of an incapable adult with cerebral palsy and significant cognitive impairment.

The niece sought appointment as guardian while the incapable person’s sister filed a competing application.

Although both parties had historically assisted with the incapable person’s care and finances, the court found the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down.

Evidence showed the respondent’s husband had engaged in sexual contact with the incapable person and the respondent attempted to conceal the incident.

The court held that this circumstance made the respondent unsuitable as guardian and that the applicant represented the reasonable alternative in the incapable person’s best interests.

An employee brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated for alleged anti‑Semitic remarks about the employer’s owners.

The employer asserted just cause based on reports from an undercover investigator and later relied on after‑acquired evidence.

The court found the investigator’s evidence unreliable and determined the employer had failed to conduct an adequate investigation or prove the alleged misconduct on a balance of probabilities.

Just cause was not established.

The court awarded 12 months’ reasonable notice damages and dismissed claims for aggravated, punitive, and Wallace damages.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned and to restore the action.

The proceeding had been commenced by notice of action but no statement of claim was filed within the required 30 days and the notice of action had been served without the statement of claim contrary to Rule 14.03.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay, including a two‑year delay after learning of the dismissal order before bringing the motion.

Applying the factors governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found inadequate explanation of delay, insufficient evidence of inadvertence, and failure to bring the motion promptly.

The request to add individual police officers as defendants was also barred by the limitation period.

Following a successful foreclosure claim on a mortgage in default, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The plaintiff claimed $47,075 in legal fees, while the defendant argued for approximately $21,000 on a partial indemnity basis and challenged several bill of costs entries.

The court considered the complexity of the litigation, including limitation issues and the time gap between the debt, mortgage, and enforcement proceedings.

Although the court accepted that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate, it found portions of counsel’s preparation time for discovery and trial excessive.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis plus disbursements and HST.