Michelle Doody

The respondent in a vexatious litigant application brought a motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an adjournment, leave to amend her pleadings in a separate action, the return of her passport, and monetary damages.

She also requested that the presiding judge recuse herself for alleged historical bias.

The court dismissed the recusal request, finding no evidence of bias.

The procedural requests regarding the timetable were adjourned to be heard by the Associate Justice managing the proceeding.

The requests for leave to amend, passport return, and monetary relief were dismissed without prejudice to the respondent pursuing them in the appropriate underlying action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 21, the defendants sought their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff had made sweeping, unproven allegations of fraud, theft, and professional misconduct against the defendants.

The court found that these unfounded allegations warranted elevated costs to sanction the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct.

Additionally, two defendants had made offers to settle that the plaintiff failed to accept, further justifying substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs totaling $58,474.91.

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 self-represented plaintiff brought an action against her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, her former spouse, and the Ottawa Police Service, alleging an 'eviction scam' that resulted in the loss of her personal property.

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

The court granted the motions, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the core dispute, the claims against the real estate agent were statute-barred, and the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against any defendant.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious against the paralegal and former spouse, and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The defendant brought a motion in writing on consent for leave to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court found multiple deficiencies in the motion record, including the failure to attach the proposed amended pleading, lack of supporting affidavit evidence, and an improperly drafted consent and draft order.

Despite the motion being on consent, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the moving party to deliver a fresh, corrected motion record.

The defendants brought a motion in the middle of a jury trial for leave to file a new expert report from a vocational rehabilitation expert.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it would be highly prejudicial as she had already closed her case and her experts had testified.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that allowing the late report would be unfair and prejudicial, an adjournment was impossible due to the jury, and the defendants had long known the basis of the plaintiff's future income loss claim.

The defendants brought a threshold motion following a jury trial, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff suffered chronic pain that prevented her from pursuing a career as a police officer, leading the jury to award $175,000 for loss of future income and $65,000 for pain and suffering.

The court applied the Meyer v. Bright test and found the plaintiff's chronic pain constituted a permanent, serious impairment of an important function, dismissing the defendants' motion.

The defendants brought a motion for leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call more than three expert witnesses, specifically seeking to file a report from a second physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the second physiatrist would provide redundant evidence identical to that of the defendants' first physiatrist.

The court denied leave, finding that calling multiple experts with the same specialty incurs unnecessary expense and is not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury and proceed judge-alone after defence counsel referred to the plaintiff's case as a 'cash grab' during closing submissions.

The plaintiff argued the comment was inflammatory and implied dishonesty.

The defendants opposed the motion and argued the plaintiff also made emotional appeals using analogies.

The court found the 'cash grab' comment was prejudicial but concluded a correcting instruction would be sufficient to cure the prejudice.

The motion to strike the jury was dismissed, and the court declined to give correcting instructions regarding the plaintiff's analogies.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall in a hotel lobby.

The plaintiff slipped on a wet tile floor that had just been mopped behind him while he was checking in.

The court found that the hotel cleaner and desk clerk failed to verbally warn the plaintiff of the hazard, and the wet floor sign was placed behind him out of his sightline.

The court held that the defendants failed to meet their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and found them liable for the plaintiff's injuries.