Michelle Morgan Doody

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated July 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The court dismissed a motion by Ottawa Police Services and Keith Patrick to strike Tanya Locke’s claim for misfeasance in public office.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was an abuse of process due to a prior dismissed action.

The court found the claim could fall within the exception in section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the plaintiff had pleaded the elements of misfeasance in public office.

The court held the claim was not statute-barred, disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and was not an abuse of process.

The Ottawa Police Services Board brought an application to have Deirdre Moore declared a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed Ms. Moore’s extensive litigation history, including multiple meritless and repetitive claims, improper purposes, and abusive conduct both inside and outside the courtroom.

The court found that Ms. Moore’s conduct met the hallmarks of vexatious litigation and granted the application, prohibiting her from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave of the court, except for ongoing divorce proceedings.

The court also fixed costs against Ms. Moore.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought a claim alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy by US officials, Canadian defendants (Toronto Police Services Board, CSIS, and Government of Canada), and others, involving surveillance, remote physical/mental impacts, and financial suppression.

The Canadian defendants moved to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, arguing it lacked sufficient particulars and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, particularly against the Crown.

The court granted the motion, finding the allegations to be bald, unsupported, and incapable of proof, and that no viable claim could be pleaded even with amendments.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for costs thrown away after the defendants served a Medicolegal File Review expert report in breach of Rule 53.03, just one week before the pre-trial and trial.

Although the defendants subsequently advised they would no longer rely on the report, rendering the substantive motion unnecessary, the plaintiffs sought costs for the wasted effort.

The court applied the three-component test for costs thrown away, finding that the plaintiffs' motion was reasonably necessary, the associated fees and disbursements were rendered useless, and the defendants' conduct occasioned these wasted costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $5,000 in costs.

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 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 plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in her motor vehicle collision action, seeking to proceed to trial before a judge alone due to concerns about potential delays and prejudice (financial and mental health) related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave for the plaintiff to bring the motion but ultimately dismissed it.

The court found that the plaintiff's grounds, such as temporary jury selection bans, were no longer valid as COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted.

The court emphasized the substantive right to a jury trial and determined that the plaintiff's evidence regarding prejudice was insufficient or lacked concrete detail to justify overriding this right.

The court reserved costs to the trial judge and granted both parties leave to bring further motions if the pandemic circumstances change again.

The City of Ottawa brought an ex-parte motion for an interim injunction against "Persons Unknown" (Freedom Convoy 2022) to restrain ongoing violations of municipal by-laws during a demonstration.

The court granted the injunction, finding overwhelming evidence of by-law breaches and significant disruption to city functions and public safety.

The decision applied the modified test for statutory injunctions under the Municipal Act, emphasizing the public interest in law enforcement over the need to prove irreparable harm or balance of convenience.

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.

This decision addresses pre-judgment interest and costs following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages against Legalett Canada Inc. for negligent misrepresentation and breach of collateral warranty, but their claim against Joshua Teixeira was dismissed.

The court awarded the plaintiffs pre-judgment interest and partial indemnity costs from Legalett.

Concurrently, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to Teixeira from the plaintiffs.

The court declined to issue a Sanderson or Bullock order, finding it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to sue Teixeira personally and that the defendants did not improperly shift responsibility onto each other.

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 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 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 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 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.