Melanie Toolsie

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

Five bellwether individual issues trials were heard as summary judgment motions to determine whether class members who were placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries were entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond their share of the aggregate damages award.

The court assessed the idiosyncratic harm suffered by each plaintiff, taking into account their pre-existing mental health conditions and other stressors.

The court awarded additional compensatory damages to three plaintiffs ($50,000, $25,000, and $75,000) who proved that their time in segregation caused specific, additional harm.

The claims of the other two plaintiffs were dismissed as they failed to prove causation.

The court declined to award punitive damages in any of the cases.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the litigation was ill-advised and had no chance of success.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to recognize the effect on the plaintiff, fixing costs at an all-inclusive sum of $15,000.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff, a legal assistant, had been previously acquitted of immigration fraud charges following an undercover RCMP investigation, while her employer was convicted.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and prosecute the plaintiff based on intercepted communications and her involvement in fabricating a refugee claim.

As reasonable and probable grounds existed, both the negligent investigation and malicious prosecution claims failed.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The applicant, a federal inmate convicted of second degree murder, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid requiring his transfer from medium to minimum security.

He argued that maintaining his medium security classification despite favourable psychological reports and recommendations from his case management team constituted an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

The court held that refusal to grant a less restrictive security classification does not amount to a deprivation of residual liberty where the inmate has never previously enjoyed the lower classification.

In any event, the court found the warden’s decision reasonable, given concerns about the inmate’s continued denial of responsibility and its relevance to risk assessment under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The plaintiff egg producer sued the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada for negligent investigation after its flock was suspected of salmonella contamination, leading the plaintiff to destroy the flock before final negative test results were received.

The motion judge found that the agencies owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither agency owed a private duty of care to the plaintiff.

The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and the Health of Animals Act demonstrated a legislative intent to exclude a private law duty through its statutory compensation scheme and immunity clause.