M. Brady

The plaintiff sued the police services board and an investigating officer for negligent investigation, false arrest, and other torts following his acquittal on criminal charges including extortion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that most of the claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff failed to prove they were not discoverable earlier.

The court also dismissed the negligent investigation claim on the merits, finding no evidence that the police breached the standard of care of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances, as they had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges based on sworn statements.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

An insurance company applied for a winding-up order under the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act.

The central issue was the interpretation of insolvency in the context of a life insurance company whose liabilities consist primarily of long‑term policy obligations.

The court adopted a purposive interpretation and applied the definition of insolvency from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, recognizing that contingent and future policy liabilities form part of the solvency analysis.

The court also accepted regulatory measures such as the Minimum Continuing Capital and Surplus Ratio as relevant indicators of financial distress.

Finding the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets and accepting the regulator’s assessment of insolvency, the court granted the winding‑up order.