Mathew Johnson

The court considered two motions for summary judgment in a civil action brought by William Stoddart, a former inmate, against Dr. Diana Silver Wyatt and various Crown defendants.

Stoddart alleged assault and professional negligence against Dr. Wyatt, and negligence, assault, and breach of Charter rights against the Crown defendants, arising from the discontinuation of his prescription for gabapentin following a change in the Correctional Service of Canada’s drug formulary.

The court found that the only evidence on the standard of care was from the defendants, and Stoddart failed to provide any expert evidence in support of his claims.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment, dismissing all of Stoddart’s claims.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the defendants' cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendants argued the claim was vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process, being an attempt to re-litigate matters previously decided in Federal Court.

The court found that the plaintiff's current claims for monetary damages, including allegations of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, negligence, defamation, and employment rights violations against the RCMP, had been extensively litigated and conclusively decided against him in numerous prior Federal Court proceedings (8 actions, 2 judicial review applications, 12 appeals).

Applying principles of res judicata and abuse of process, the court determined the claim was a clear abuse of process and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, declining to award costs.

The plaintiff, Gary Sauve, brought a motion seeking procedural relief to pursue claims, primarily against his former employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), for alleged harms leading to his discharge.

He also sought to re-litigate multiple proceedings previously pursued in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court found the plaintiff's materials incomprehensible and unsupported by admissible evidence.

The motion was dismissed, as the continuation of the action was deemed manifestly vexatious, an abuse of process, and the claims were long since statute-barred.

The plaintiff's requests for state-funded counsel, a fee waiver, injunctive relief, and joining additional defendants were also denied due to lack of supporting evidence.

The plaintiff sued for damages totalling approximately two million dollars, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation against the Attorney General of Canada and a contract manager, Paul Piché.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's participation in a 2007 Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) where his bid was largely prepared by a competitor, leading to a bid-rigging investigation and charges (later stayed).

The plaintiff argued that negligent answers to RFSO questions induced his actions and that Piché's statements to the Competition Bureau were defamatory.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no duty of care owed by the defendants to provide legal advice on the Competition Act, no negligent misrepresentation or breach of standard of care, and no malice in the defamation claim.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and that his alleged damages were unproven and too remote, largely attributable to his own contributory negligence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 29, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the court below and dismissed the appeal without costs.

In the midst of a family law trial, the applicant served a Summons to Witness on an Area Director at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to verify the respondent's tax filings and provide expert evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to set aside the summons.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 241 of the Income Tax Act strictly prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer information.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the summonsed witness had any relevant or material evidence, and improperly sought to compel a government official to act as an expert auditor.

This motion arose from an application by the Attorney General of Canada seeking the return of confidential taxpayer information inadvertently sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and an order preventing its future use.

The CBC, as respondent in the main application, brought a motion to compel the production of various documents from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that were refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The Master dismissed the CBC's motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the issues on the application, nor to the deponent's credibility, and that the requests constituted a 'fishing expedition'.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that government secret agents had been attacking him with remote-controlled laser radiation and conducting unauthorized surveillance as part of a conspiracy.

The court found the allegations to be incurable and incapable of being substantiated in a court of law.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action, making no order as to costs.