M. Hoy

The plaintiff, a paralegal student, sued Mohawk College and several of its employees for defamation and negligence arising from emails sent by a community placement liaison regarding his past employment.

The individual college employees moved to strike the claims against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing that the employees committed independent tortious acts or acted outside the scope of their employment.

The claims against the individual employees were struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for assault and negligence against the police board and an officer, the defendants sought costs of approximately $65,000.

The plaintiff argued for $15,000.

The court noted the plaintiff's unreasonable settlement expectations and the defendants' sincere, though non-compliant, Rule 49 offer.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff sued a police officer and the police services board for assault and negligence following a traffic stop and arrest.

The plaintiff, who was pulled over by an unmarked police car for speeding, claimed he did not realize the officer was police and alleged the arrest caused him physical soreness and severe PTSD.

The court dismissed the action, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for evading police and used minimal force.

The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric injury was not foreseeable, as it stemmed from his peculiar personality structure rather than the defendants' actions.