Mary Simms

The individual defendants (Mayor and Treasurer) brought a motion to dismiss the action against them pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the claims were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged his home was sold at a tax sale auction for less than 45% of its value and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The court found that the claims against the individual defendants lacked any factual basis specific to their personal conduct and were not justiciable.

The motion was granted and the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without costs.

The City of Ottawa brought a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss Michael Tardif's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Tardif's claim sought to quash a municipal by-law regarding garbage limits, without seeking damages.

The court found the action was improperly brought as a statement of claim instead of an application, exhibited characteristics of querulous litigant behaviour, and constituted a collateral attack on previous dismissals of similar actions by Tardif against the City.

The court dismissed the action, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and awarded costs to the City.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original action sought injunctive relief to compel the Ottawa Police Service to arrest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and prevent interference with the appellant's own attempts to arrest him, along with $500,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's discretionary decision, affirming that the action lacked legal basis, was unintelligible, and used pseudo-legal jargon.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action against several defendants, including judges and police, alleging Charter violations.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' written submissions following a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the claims frivolous, vexatious, and barred by judicial immunity, the court dismissed the action in its entirety.

Additionally, the court revoked the plaintiff's fee waiver under the Administration of Justice Act to prevent further abuse of court resources.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the action by one plaintiff, who was a declared vexatious litigant and had not obtained leave to institute the proceeding.

The court stayed the action by the second plaintiff, noting the claims against judges and court officials appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the registrar to issue a notice for written submissions on why the action should not be dismissed and his fee waiver cancelled.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that one plaintiff, Dr. Basmadji, was subject to a vexatious litigant order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and had not obtained leave to institute the action.

The court also inferred that Dr. Basmadji, who is not a lawyer, improperly instituted the action on behalf of both plaintiffs, including Mr. Chevalier, who may be a party under disability.

Consequently, the action was stayed under Rule 2.1.03(1).

The stay was without prejudice to Mr. Chevalier's right to commence a further proceeding, provided he complies with rules regarding representation and disability.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff initiated a civil action against the Ottawa Police Services, seeking injunctions to compel the arrest of the Prime Minister for alleged extortion and damages for police interference with a citizen's arrest.

The defendant sought dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the remedies sought were legally unavailable, the statement of claim lacked material facts, and contained pseudo-legal jargon and unsubstantiated accusations.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada and the Ottawa Police Services Board, alleging negligent investigation, harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter breaches arising from alleged ongoing surveillance and the placement of electronic devices in his vehicle and home.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the plaintiff provided only speculation and bald allegations without evidentiary foundation, while the defendants provided evidence that no such surveillance or investigation occurred.

The court granted the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff moved for leave to deliver and file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim to add the Ottawa Police Services Board as a defendant and expand on allegations against the RCMP.

The defendants opposed the amendment and alternatively moved to strike portions of it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted leave to amend the claim, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court struck several paragraphs of the proposed amended claim, including a statute-barred claim against the police board and Charter claims unsupported by pleaded facts, while allowing claims for negligent investigation and harassment to proceed.

During a jury trial concerning an alleged agreement to share proceeds of a winning Lotto 6/49 ticket, the defendant moved for a non-suit after the plaintiff closed her case.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s evidence could support a breach of contract claim for a one-third share of lottery winnings based on an alleged oral agreement involving the defendant and a third party.

The court held there was no evidence of a “meeting of the minds” with the third party and no agency relationship allowing the defendant to bind that party to a contract.

As a result, no reasonable jury could find a valid contract existed.

The non-suit motion on the breach of contract claim was granted, the jury was dismissed, and the remaining equitable trust claims were left to be determined by the judge.