Michael John Saad

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 self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Crown, the Attorney General, and the police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and other torts arising from his arrest and prosecution for offences related to underage prostitution.

The charges had been withdrawn following a resolution involving a peace bond and forfeiture order.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 17 of the Crown Liability Proceedings Act to proceed with his claims of misfeasance and bad faith, while the defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave and granted the defendants' motions to strike, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient material facts to support his claims and that the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity and statutory protections.

The actions were dismissed without leave to amend.

The plaintiff commenced two actions (in 2018 and 2022) against the Crown and the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario containing overlapping allegations regarding the suspension of his firearms instructor license.

The defendants brought motions to strike or stay the 2022 Action.

The court struck the 2022 Action against the Crown for failure to provide statutory notice, struck the claims based on 2017 and 2018 events as statute-barred, and stayed the remaining duplicative claims as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the 2018 Action to incorporate the claims from the 2022 Action.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion to vary or set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review.

The underlying application sought mandamus to compel the Chief Medical Officer of Health to act regarding pediatric COVID-19 vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's conclusions that the applicants failed to plead the necessary statutory conditions precedent and that mandamus is not available to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular way.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was final and should have been directed to the Court of Appeal.

Alternatively, the court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious on its face, as it sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated in prior proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The self-represented plaintiff noted all defendants in default without providing prior notice of her intention to do so.

The defendants, comprising the Attorney General of Canada, municipal police, and other officials, moved to set aside the noting in default.

The court applied the factors from Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel and found that the defendants had always intended to defend the action, acted promptly upon learning of the default, and that the plaintiff's failure to provide notice deprived them of the opportunity to respond.

The court set aside the noting in default, allowing the claims to be determined on their merits.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to seal the entire court file in a civil action for wrongful arrest, arguing it was necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal proceeding.

The plaintiffs consented to sealing but sought additional terms, while the Toronto Star opposed the broad sealing order.

The court found that sealing the entire file was overly broad and violated the open court principle, ordering instead that only the unredacted amended statement of claim containing Stinchcombe disclosure be sealed.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Chief Medical Officer of Health to halt the pediatric COVID-19 vaccination program in Ontario.

The respondent moved to quash the application for judicial review.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious that the application could not succeed because the Chief Medical Officer of Health's authority to issue directives is discretionary and conditional on forming specific opinions, which were not pleaded.

The court also found that the applicants lacked public interest standing.

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.