Michael John Saad

Nine parties brought motions to intervene in an action concerning the interpretation of the Robinson Huron Treaty and the boundaries of the plaintiff's reserve lands.

Eight of the proposed intervenors were neighbouring First Nations who are also signatories to the Treaty, while the ninth was an unincorporated litigation trust.

The Superior Court of Justice granted party intervenor status to the eight First Nations, finding they had a direct interest in the boundary dispute and could provide useful context without overwhelming the plaintiff's case.

The court imposed strict conditions on their participation to prevent undue delay.

The motion by the litigation trust was dismissed, as it was not a rights-holder itself and its participation would be duplicative and unduly prejudicial to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a resident of Howe Island, brought an action against the Province of Ontario, the County of Frontenac, and Transport Canada after the capacity of the Howe Island ferry was reduced from 15 to 10 vehicles due to safety regulations.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff to maintain a specific level of public service, and that the claim for pure economic loss was untenable.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendants, two Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court, requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued the Deputy Judges over rulings they made in a Small Claims Court proceeding, alleging obstruction of justice.

The court found the action to be frivolous and an abuse of process on its face, as judicial officers have absolute immunity from civil liability for actions performed in their judicial capacity.

The action was dismissed.

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Twenty days later, she entered into a Common Law Peace Bond with Crown consent, and the assault charge was withdrawn.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 appellant attempted to appeal an interlocutory order without first obtaining leave from the Divisional Court.

A panel previously directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the appellant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the respondent Police Services Board.

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 self-represented applicant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal, having previously been denied an adjournment.

The Divisional Court panel noted that the order appealed from was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, which the applicant had not obtained.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the applicant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant was given twenty days to provide written submissions in response.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the pre-hearing steps and organization of an 8-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 3, 2025.

The hearing will determine the compensation owed to the claimant arising from the Ministry of Transportation's partial expropriation of the claimant's land.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

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.