Michael John Saad

The plaintiff sued the Crown (Ontario) for false arrest and negligent investigation arising from her arrest by OPP Constable Morrison on December 2, 2017, following 911 calls from her husband reporting she had a knife and was threatening self-harm.

The plaintiff was charged with assault, assessed at a hospital, and released on a Promise to Appear.

Twenty days later, she entered into a Common Law Peace Bond with Crown consent, and the assault charge was withdrawn.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on the husband's account that she had punched him approximately 10 times.

The court also held that the Peace Bond disposition precluded the tort claims, as entering into a Peace Bond does not constitute a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to comply with multiple costs orders totaling $61,586.96.

The plaintiff argued he was entitled to a hearing before a panel of the Divisional Court to clarify their order before paying costs.

The court rejected this argument, finding no process exists for an explanatory attendance after an order is settled, the Divisional Court had already refused further attendance, the order was clear on its face, and the plaintiff's failure to pay costs remained unexplained.

The motion was granted with costs awarded to the defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mario Oliveira Jr.'s application to review a motion judge's order refusing to extend the time to perfect his appeal.

The court found that while Mr. Oliveira had a genuine intention to perfect his appeal and was delayed by inaccurate information from court staff, the appeal itself was so devoid of merit that it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

The court agreed with the motion judge that the underlying claim was abusive and vexatious, and rejected the argument that the motion judge failed to account for Mr. Oliveira's self-represented status.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded against Mr. Oliveira Jr.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The applicant sought to set aside an order from a single judge of the Court of Appeal who had denied a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the motion judge's reasons and found no error in the application of the legal test for an extension of time.

The court concluded that the motion had no merit and dismissed it, ordering costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a de-designated firearms instructor, appealed a costs order from a motion that struck and stayed parts of his second action (2022 Action) as duplicative of an earlier action (2018 Action).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold specified in the Courts of Justice Act, which applies when the costs order itself is the subject of the appeal.

The Attorney General of Canada sought summary judgment to dismiss a claim by Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation, arguing that their request to re-delineate reserve boundaries constituted a collateral attack and abuse of process on a 1889 judgment (Francis).

The First Nation argued the Francis decision was unfair as they were not an equal party.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, exercising its residual discretion to allow the claim to proceed to trial, emphasizing that while re-litigation doctrines are important, justice and reconciliation, particularly for Indigenous rights, can override them when there was a structural unfairness in prior proceedings.

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge’s decision to deny an extension of time for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had dismissed the applicant's request to set aside or vary a previous decision as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, agreeing that the proposed leave application lacked merit and that an allegation of conflict of interest could not be grafted onto the original mandamus application.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed his motion to set aside a prior ruling under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original application for judicial review sought a mandamus order against the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario regarding pediatric COVID-19 vaccinations, which was quashed for lack of arguable claim and standing.

The Court of Appeal, applying the four-factor test for extending time, found a lengthy delay without cogent explanation and, critically, that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court affirmed that a Rule 2.1 dismissal is appropriate for frivolous and vexatious motions, and that new evidence irrelevant to the fundamental deficiencies of the original application would not alter the outcome.

The motion for an extension of time was denied, and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant, Banti Yadeta, appealed the dismissal of his civil claim against the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Service Board and the Crown (His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Attorney General of Ontario, and Maplehurst Correctional Complex).

The claim alleged malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and negligence related to his prior criminal charges and detention.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's motion for leave to pursue claims under s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, and granted the respondents' motion to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the appellant failed to meet the statutory requirements for leave and did not plead material facts to support his claims, noting that the criminal proceedings were not resolved in his favour for malicious prosecution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff, Neda Raji, brought an action seeking damages for false arrest, detention, abuse of process, harassment, and malicious prosecution against the Attorney General of Canada, the City of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Services Board, nine police officers (collectively "OPS defendants"), and Stephen Leach (Independent Police Review Director).

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike out the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Leach moved under r. 21.01(1)(b) for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the OPS defendants sought dismissal/stay under r. 21.01(3)(d) for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or striking under r. 25.11(b) or (c).

The court found no reasonable cause of action against the Attorney General of Canada as the claims did not involve federal jurisdiction or Crown servants.

The claim against Mr. Leach was struck due to statutory immunity under the Police Services Act, as no bad faith was pleaded.

The action against the OPS defendants was dismissed as an abuse of process (attempting to re-litigate criminal matters), frivolous (lacking legal merit, incoherent pleading), and scandalous (bare allegations of conspiracy, perjury, assault, fabrication).

Leave to amend the claim was denied due to the fundamental deficiencies and the unlikelihood of a credible lawsuit emerging.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants.

The applicant's application, which sought to relitigate the validity of a mortgage enforcement and alleged criminal offences and Charter breaches, was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and abusive, noting that the issues had been previously litigated and that the pleadings failed to establish recognizable civil claims.

The respondents requested the court consider dismissing the applicant's claim under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The court found the claim did not clearly plead a tenable case and referenced related litigation, suggesting abuse.

The court ordered the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the applicant, requiring submissions on why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant's action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing, and further filings were restricted.

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing an action for abuse of process due to the appellant's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

The appellant, Skymark Finance Corporation, entered into Minutes of Settlement with a key defendant, Lorraine Smith, which fundamentally altered the litigation dynamics by changing an adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

Skymark failed to disclose this agreement for eight months, only doing so after being threatened with an abuse of process motion.

The motion judge stayed the action, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reiterating the strict obligation for immediate disclosure of such agreements and confirming that the absence of prejudice does not excuse non-compliance.

The applicant, Jordan Ash, brought a motion for directions seeking to compel the registrar to accept a request to admit for filing under Rule 51.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to be used in a pending motion for leave to appeal.

The registrar had refused filing, asserting Rule 51.02 does not apply to motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, holding that Rule 51.02 is a pre-trial process intended for developing the factual record before a fact-determining hearing, and is not applicable at the appellate stage where the factual record is already settled.

This is an appeal concerning the application of limitation periods to tort claims, including sexual assault, against a police officer.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's motions to strike and for summary judgment, finding that the sexual assault allegations triggered s. 16(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that s. 16(1.3) extended this to related torts due to the officer's position of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision regarding the application of s. 16(1.3) to claims against the perpetrator and related torts, but set aside the declaration that no limitation period applied to all claims, stating this ultimate determination should be left to the trial judge.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed, affirming the motion judge's award.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, seeking to preserve $91,072 in Canadian currency and $510 in US currency seized from a suspected illegal gaming house.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency constituted proceeds and/or instruments of unlawful activity, including operating a gaming house and firearm offenses.

The application was granted, and the seized funds were ordered to be preserved in an interest-bearing account until the final disposition of the application.