Michael Saelhof

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

This endorsement addresses cost issues following a summary judgment motion and an allegation of judicial bias raised by the plaintiffs.

The judge declined to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $25,000 in costs to Thomson Mahoney Delorey (TMD) as per agreement.

However, the Shirley defendants were awarded no costs for the motion, as they had attended on a watching brief without formal participation.

No additional costs were awarded for dealing with the bias allegation.

The defendant law firm, Thomson Mahoney Delorey Barrister, Solicitor (TMD), brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for negligence, conspiracy, and intrusion upon seclusion, or alternatively for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, self-represented, largely conceded the negligence and conspiracy claims.

The court dismissed the negligence and conspiracy claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and alternatively as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), or for lacking a genuine issue for trial under Rule 20.

For the intrusion upon seclusion claim, while it disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the court granted summary judgment dismissing it under Rule 20, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that TMD had a lawful justification for obtaining the plaintiffs' credit report, and a reasonable person would not find the invasion highly offensive given the context of threatened litigation and the public nature of much of the information.

All claims against TMD were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondent Diocese in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against a private religious school, its former headmasters, and the local Anglican Diocese for historical abuse.

The motion judge refused certification against all respondents, but specifically dismissed the action against the Diocese for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court held it had jurisdiction under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the Diocese, as it was a final order dismissing the action, not merely a refusal to certify.

On the merits, the Court upheld the dismissal, finding the pleadings failed to establish sufficient proximity to ground a duty of care or a fiduciary relationship between the Diocese and the students.

The Court declined to join the appeal regarding the other respondents, transferring it to the Divisional Court.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to certify a class action against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the refusal to certify the action against the College, Farnsworth, and the Estate of Haig.

The court directed that the appeal involving those parties be transferred to the Divisional Court.